People v. Ullio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ullio

147 A.D.2d 600, 538 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 600 (People v. Ullio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ullio, 147 A.D.2d 600, 538 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessey, J.), rendered July 29, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant contends that trial court erroneously re[601]*601stricted the cross-examination of his accomplice on the issue of his potential bias, effectively denying the defendant his constitutional right to confront a witness against him. We disagree. Our review of the record indicates that the accomplice was subjected to extensive cross-examination on this issue, including inquiry into the fact that he expected favorable treatment in his own case in exchange for his cooperation in testifying against the defendant (see, People v Cuevas, 138 AD2d 620, 622; People v Burke, 127 AD2d 842).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. R, Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessey, J.), rendered July 29, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant contends that trial court erroneously re[601]*601stricted the cross-examination of his accomplice on the issue of his potential bias, effectively denying the defendant his constitutional right to confront a witness against him. We disagree. Our review of the record indicates that the accomplice was subjected to extensive cross-examination on this issue, including inquiry into the fact that he expected favorable treatment in his own case in exchange for his cooperation in testifying against the defendant (see, People v Cuevas, 138 AD2d 620, 622; People v Burke, 127 AD2d 842).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. R, Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 600, 538 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ullio-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack