People v. Marthone

• Decision Date: 23 February 2001
• Citation: 721 N.Y.S.2d 828
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) The People, etc., respondent, v. Rodrique Marthone, appellant. 1999-04117 Argued -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 828

721 N.Y.S.2d 828 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

The People, etc., respondent, v. Rodrique Marthone, appellant.

1999-04117

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Argued - February 23, 2001

March 19, 2001

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Debra E. Baker of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Rona I. Kugler of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered April 15, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was improperly precluded from impeaching the complainant's credibility with a prior inconsistent statement is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Voliton, 83 N.Y.2d 192, 195-196; People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947; People v Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025). In any event, the court properly limited cross-examination of the complainant since the defendant failed to establish that the complainant's prior statement was, in fact, inconsistent with the challenged portions of her trial testimony (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75; People v Meade, 198 A.D.2d 307; People v Wise, 176 A.D.2d 595).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.