People v. Patel, 2014–10967
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Citation | 169 A.D.3d 934,93 N.Y.S.3d 701 |
| Docket Number | Ind. No. 383/12,2014–10967 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Amit PATEL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 February 2019 |
169 A.D.3d 934
93 N.Y.S.3d 701
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Amit PATEL, Appellant.
2014–10967
Ind. No. 383/12
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued - November 5, 2018
February 20, 2019
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Rebecca J. Gannon and Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Jonathan K. Yi of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, as a felony, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), based
on an incident which occurred on January 26, 2012. The defendant contends that it was error to allow testimony from a police officer regarding the results of a field chemical breath test performed on him at the scene shortly after his vehicle was stopped by the police. However, the prosecution did not elicit any such testimony on direct examination of the officer. The testimony was adduced by defense counsel during cross-examination, in particular, testimony to the effect that the device was the officer's personal property, that it had been calibrated by police personnel, and that the officer had not recorded the results. On redirect, the prosecution asked the officer to explain why he used the device and why he did not record the results. Thus, the defendant has no basis for complaint as to the admission of this testimony since the defendant "opened the door" by cross-examining the officer on matters not touched upon in direct examination, giving the prosecutor the right on redirect to explain, clarify, and fully elicit testimony only partially adduced on cross-examination (see People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324 ; People v. Martin, 100 A.D.3d 930,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palmer, 2015–10183
...sentence imposed was improperly based on the crimes of which he was acquitted is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; 169 A.D.3d 934 People v. Harrison, 82 N.Y.2d 693, 694, 601 N.Y.S.2d 573, 619 N.E.2d 651 ; People v. Metellus, 46 A.D.3d 578, 579, 846 N.Y.S.2d 623 ; People ......
-
People v. Berry, 2022-50064
...55 N.Y.2d 445, 451 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord People v Watts, 176 A.D.3d 981, 984 [2019]; see People v Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 935 [2019]). Defense counsel opened the door to such previously precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the complainant on cross-examin......
-
People v. Berry, 2018-2611 S CR
...55 N.Y.2d 445, 451 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord People v Watts, 176 A.D.3d 981, 984 [2019]; see People v Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 935 [2019]). Defense counsel opened the door to such previously precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the complainant on cross-examin......
-
People v. Patel, 2014–10967
...the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 20, 2019 ( People v. Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 93 N.Y.S.3d 701 ), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 24, 2014.ORDERED that the application is den......
-
People v. Palmer, 2015–10183
...sentence imposed was improperly based on the crimes of which he was acquitted is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; 169 A.D.3d 934 People v. Harrison, 82 N.Y.2d 693, 694, 601 N.Y.S.2d 573, 619 N.E.2d 651 ; People v. Metellus, 46 A.D.3d 578, 579, 846 N.Y.S.2d 623 ; People ......
-
People v. Berry, 2022-50064
...55 N.Y.2d 445, 451 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord People v Watts, 176 A.D.3d 981, 984 [2019]; see People v Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 935 [2019]). Defense counsel opened the door to such previously precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the complainant on cross-examin......
-
People v. Berry, 2018-2611 S CR
...55 N.Y.2d 445, 451 [1982] [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord People v Watts, 176 A.D.3d 981, 984 [2019]; see People v Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 935 [2019]). Defense counsel opened the door to such previously precluded evidence by eliciting testimony from the complainant on cross-examin......
-
People v. Patel, 2014–10967
...the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 20, 2019 ( People v. Patel, 169 A.D.3d 934, 93 N.Y.S.3d 701 ), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 24, 2014.ORDERED that the application is den......