People v. Brock
| Decision Date | 07 April 1997 |
| Citation | 656 N.Y.S.2d 63,238 A.D.2d 347 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Leander BROCK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene A. Cordaro, Mineola, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola (Robert A. Schwartz and Denise Pavlides, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and PIZZUTO, SANTUCCI and JOY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered February 18, 1994, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant did not timely object to the complainant's assertion of her Fifth Amendment rights, his present contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; see also, People v. Perry, 218 A.D.2d 818, 630 N.Y.S.2d 795; People v. Irizarry, 214 A.D.2d 622, 625 N.Y.S.2d 92; People v. Sims, 209 A.D.2d 192, 618 N.Y.S.2d 283; People v. Kaufman, 156 A.D.2d 718, 549 N.Y.S.2d 471). In any event, the defendant was permitted to establish that the complainant had prior criminal convictions. Further, the disposition of the cases about which she refused to answer questions had no direct bearing on the facts surrounding the crime with which the defendant was charged. These were, therefore, collateral matters, and the refusal of the witness to testify with respect thereto was not a denial of the defendant's right to confront the witness (see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 499 N.Y.S.2d 638, 490 N.E.2d 505; People v. Perry, supra; People v. Rodriguez, 177 A.D.2d 664, 577 N.Y.S.2d 71; People v. Kaufman, supra). The limited extent to which the complainant was allowed to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination did not unfairly undermine the defendant's right to confrontation (see, People v. Chin, supra; People v. Irizarry, supra; People v. Sims, supra; People v. Cole, 196 A.D.2d 634, 601 N.Y.S.2d 352; People v. Dancy, 176 A.D.2d 597, 575 N.Y.S.2d 41).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is meritless.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lindsey
...contention, he was not deprived of his right to confrontation ( see People v. Salazar, 1 A.D.3d 387, 766 N.Y.S.2d 862; People v. Brock, 238 A.D.2d 347, 656 N.Y.S.2d 63). The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the alleged prosecutorial misconduct on summation, the Supreme Court's fa......
-
People v. Navarro
...undermine the defendant's right to confrontation (see, People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 499 N.Y.S.2d 638, 490 N.E.2d 505; People v. Brock, 238 A.D.2d 347, 656 N.Y.S.2d 63). The court therefore properly declined to strike the testimony of this The defendant's remaining contentions are either un......
-
People v. Brock
...661 N.Y.S.2d 182 90 N.Y.2d 855, 683 N.E.2d 1056 People v. Leander Brock Court of Appeals of New York June 30, 1997 Levine, J. --- A.D.2d ----, 656 N.Y.S.2d 63 App.Div. 2, Nassau Denied. ...