People v. York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. York

267 A.D.2d 175, 700 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13374

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 175 (People v. York) 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. York, 267 A.D.2d 175, 700 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered July 3, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion. The court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value and possible prejudicial effect of defendant’s prior convictions in its Sandoval ruling. We note the court’s exclusion of numerous misdemeanor convictions, three parole violations, and two prior felony convictions, including a conviction for the sale of a controlled substance. The court properly permitted inquiry into the existence and underlying facts of prior convictions for attempted robbery, grand larceny, and petit larceny, all of which were relevant to defendant’s credibility. Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered July 3, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion. The court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value and possible prejudicial effect of defendant’s prior convictions in its Sandoval ruling. We note the court’s exclusion of numerous misdemeanor convictions, three parole violations, and two prior felony convictions, including a conviction for the sale of a controlled substance. The court properly permitted inquiry into the existence and underlying facts of prior convictions for attempted robbery, grand larceny, and petit larceny, all of which were relevant to defendant’s credibility. Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 175, 700 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-york-nyappdiv-1999.