People v. Znajmiecki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Znajmiecki

284 A.D.2d 983, 726 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5937

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 983 (People v. Znajmiecki) 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. Znajmiecki, 284 A.D.2d 983, 726 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment [984]*984unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor violated County Court’s pretrial Ventimiglia ruling by referring to an uncharged crime during her opening statement and presenting testimony concerning it. Defendant failed to object to the prosecutor’s reference to the uncharged crime during her opening statement and failed to object to most of the testimony concerning it (see, People v Carter, 263 AD2d 958, lv denied 94 NY2d 820). In any event, any error is harmless. There is overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the conviction (see, People v Schrader, 251 AD2d 1032, 1033, lv denied 92 NY2d 882). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Criminal Possession Stolen Property, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment [984]*984unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor violated County Court’s pretrial Ventimiglia ruling by referring to an uncharged crime during her opening statement and presenting testimony concerning it. Defendant failed to object to the prosecutor’s reference to the uncharged crime during her opening statement and failed to object to most of the testimony concerning it (see, People v Carter, 263 AD2d 958, lv denied 94 NY2d 820). In any event, any error is harmless. There is overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the conviction (see, People v Schrader, 251 AD2d 1032, 1033, lv denied 92 NY2d 882). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Criminal Possession Stolen Property, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 983, 726 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-znajmiecki-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack