People v. Everson

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Citation767 N.Y.S.2d 389,799 N.E.2d 613,100 N.Y.2d 609
Decision Date23 September 2003
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BRANDI EVERSON, Appellant.

100 N.Y.2d 609
799 N.E.2d 613
767 N.Y.S.2d 389

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v.
BRANDI EVERSON, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided September 23, 2003.


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.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

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
13 practice notes
  • People v. Fortunato, 2007 NY Slip Op 33875(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/20/2007), 0008607/2006.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 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 Page ......
  • People v. Sippel, 2018 - 3800
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • September 25, 2019
    ...N.Y.S.2d 173, 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) ]. S......
  • People v. Sudol
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 10, 2011
    ...it may only grant a CPL 330.30(1) motion where the error alleged has been preserved by a proper objection at trial ( People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 799 N.E.2d 613 [2003] ). The motion court, which had also presided at trial, set aside the gang assault conviction on the......
  • People v. Shire
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 1, 2010
    ...failure to specify the basis for [his or her] general objection renders [the] argument unpreserved for [our] review" ( People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 799 N.E.2d 613; see People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 880-881, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 644 N.E.2d 1342). In any event, even as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • People v. Fortunato, 2007 NY Slip Op 33875(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/20/2007), 0008607/2006.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • November 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 Page ......
  • People v. Sippel, 2018 - 3800
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • September 25, 2019
    ...N.Y.S.2d 173, 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) ]. S......
  • People v. Sudol
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 10, 2011
    ...it may only grant a CPL 330.30(1) motion where the error alleged has been preserved by a proper objection at trial ( People v. Everson, 100 N.Y.2d 609, 767 N.Y.S.2d 389, 799 N.E.2d 613 [2003] ). The motion court, which had also presided at trial, set aside the gang assault conviction on the......
  • People v. Johnson, Indictment No. 7147/2013
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • September 17, 2014
    ...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]).Page 2If trial facts must be supplemen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT