People v. Wing

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Wing

469 N.E.2d 835, 63 N.Y.2d 754, 480 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4557

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 20, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 469 N.E.2d 835 (People v. Wing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Wing, 469 N.E.2d 835, 63 N.Y.2d 754, 480 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4557 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the County Court should be reversed and the case remitted to the Town Court of Chili for further proceedings on the information.

The abundance of inadmissible hearsay evidence permitted by the trial court created a “substantial probability of irreparable prejudice” to defendants’ case. (Matter of Leon [756]*756RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122; see, also, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242.) Over the objections of the defendants, the prosecution was repeatedly allowed to elicit testimony and to introduce documents that were clearly hearsay, despite the absence of any recognized exception to the rule against hearsay. Considering these errors cumulatively, it cannot be said that they were harmless.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach defendants’ other contentions.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum; Judge Wachtler taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the County Court should be reversed and the case remitted to the Town Court of Chili for further proceedings on the information.

The abundance of inadmissible hearsay evidence permitted by the trial court created a “substantial probability of irreparable prejudice” to defendants’ case. (Matter of Leon [756]*756RR, 48 NY2d 117, 122; see, also, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242.) Over the objections of the defendants, the prosecution was repeatedly allowed to elicit testimony and to introduce documents that were clearly hearsay, despite the absence of any recognized exception to the rule against hearsay. Considering these errors cumulatively, it cannot be said that they were harmless.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach defendants’ other contentions.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur in memorandum; Judge Wachtler taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 N.E.2d 835, 63 N.Y.2d 754, 480 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wing-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack