People v. Everson
| Decision Date | 23 September 2003 |
| Citation | 767 N.Y.S.2d 389,799 N.E.2d 613,100 N.Y.2d 609 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRANDI EVERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Muldoon & Getz, Rochester (Gary Muldoon of counsel), for appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur.
The order of the Appellate Division reversing the order of the Supreme Court and denying defendant's CPL 330.30 motion, and reinstating the verdict convicting him of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), should be affirmed. A party's failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for this Court's review (see People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]
). At trial, defense counsel made only a general objection to a portion of one of the expert's statements. Supreme Court sustained it and gave a limiting instruction. Defense counsel neither objected to the adequacy or accuracy of the limiting instruction nor specifically objected upon hearsay grounds to the expert's further testimony. Therefore, defendant's challenge to the expert's testimony was not preserved. The Appellate Division properly concluded that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's CPL 330.30 (1) motion on a ground that would not have required "a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court."
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fortunato, 2007 NY Slip Op 33875(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/20/2007)
...by the trial judge under C.P.L. §330.30 unless a proper objection was made at trial to preserve the claimed error. People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 610 (2003); People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56 (2001); People v. Patino, 259 A.D.2d 502 (2d Dept.), lv. denied, 93 N.Y.2d 976 (1999); People Tillm......
-
Lloyd v. Morton
... ... Id ... at 9. Petitioner's first trial, which was held in 2010, ... ended in a hung jury. See People v. Lloyd , 185 ... A.D.3d 1057, 1058 (2d Dep't 2020). Petitioner was tried a ... second time in 2011 and was convicted of Murder in the ... grounds for objecting, petitioner's claim was ... procedurally barred); People v. Everson , 100 N.Y.2d ... 609, 610 (2003) (“A party's failure to specify the ... basis for its general objection renders its argument ... ...
-
People v. Sippel
...652 N.E.2d 919 (1995). See People v. Benton , 78 A.D.3d 1545, 1546, 910 N.Y.S.2d 795 (4th Dept. 2010).7 People v. Everson , 100 N.Y.2d 609, 610, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 799 N.E.2d 613 (2003) [affirming People v. Everson , 303 A.D.2d 1027, 1028, 757 N.Y.S.2d 196 (4th Dept. 2003) ]. See also People......
-
People v. Johnson, Indictment No. 7147/2013
...only a claim of error that is properly preserved for appellate review will provide a basis to set aside the verdict (People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609 [2003]; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61 [2001]; People v. Sadowski, 173 A.D.2d 873 [2d Dept. 1991]).If trial facts must be supplemented by......
-
Table of cases
...967 N.Y.S.2d 195 (3d Dept. 2013), §5:130 People v. Evans, 210 A.D.2d 501, 620 N.Y.S.2d 461 (2d Dept. 1994), § 9:80 People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389 (2003), § 1:150 People v. Farmer, 194 N.Y. 251, 87 N.E. 457 (1909), § 7:70 People v. Farrell, 58 N.Y.2d 637, 458 N.Y.S.2d 51......
-
Objections & related procedures
...is followed by a specific objection directing the court and opposing counsel to the particular evidentiary infirmity. People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389 (2003) (A party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for review); Pe......
-
Objections & related procedures
...insufficient to preserve the issue for our review, because it did not specify the basis for the general objection”); People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389 (2003) (a party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for review); Peo......
-
Objections & related procedures
...it is followed by a speciic objection directing the court and opposing counsel to the particular evidentiary inirmity. People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389 (2003) (A party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for review); P......