People v. Windley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Windley

221 A.D.2d 577, 634 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 577 (People v. Windley) 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. Windley, 221 A.D.2d 577, 634 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), rendered April 21, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to permit a 911 telephone operator to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by the complainant as to the defendant’s height. While the complainant initially described the defendant as being six feet tall, he subsequently indicated that the defendant was approximately five feet eight inches tall. The initial description of the defendant as being six feet tall was given to a police officer as well as to the 911 telephone operator. That officer testified about the initial description and the complainant was cross-examined about the variance in his descriptions. Under the circumstances, where the inconsistency was placed before the jury, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the testimony of the operator (see, People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151,164-165; People v Hayes, 191 AD2d 368, 370; People v Drake, 141 AD2d 560, 561). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), rendered April 21, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to permit a 911 telephone operator to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by the complainant as to the defendant’s height. While the complainant initially described the defendant as being six feet tall, he subsequently indicated that the defendant was approximately five feet eight inches tall. The initial description of the defendant as being six feet tall was given to a police officer as well as to the 911 telephone operator. That officer testified about the initial description and the complainant was cross-examined about the variance in his descriptions. Under the circumstances, where the inconsistency was placed before the jury, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the testimony of the operator (see, People v Piazza, 48 NY2d 151,164-165; People v Hayes, 191 AD2d 368, 370; People v Drake, 141 AD2d 560, 561). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 577, 634 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-windley-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack