People v. Sewnarine
| Citation | 66 N.Y.S.3d 244,156 A.D.3d 459 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Ind. 921/13,5179 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Devindra SEWNARINE, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
156 A.D.3d 459
66 N.Y.S.3d 244
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Devindra SEWNARINE, Defendant–Appellant.
5179
Ind. 921/13
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 12, 2017
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (William Kendall of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Megan DeMarco of counsel), for respondent.
Tom, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered December 5, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree, welfare fraud in the third degree, and six counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years' probation, with $18,000 in restitution, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's challenge to the court's purported restriction of counsel's voir dire of prospective jurors is unpreserved (see People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392, 409, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45 [2016] ; People v. Salley, 25 A.D.3d 473, 475, 808 N.Y.S.2d 664 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 838, 814 N.Y.S.2d 86, 847 N.E.2d 383 [2006] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that after the court's own thorough examination, the court afforded all counsel a fair opportunity to question panelists about relevant matters (see e.g. People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744, 745, 551 N.Y.S.2d 889, 551 N.E.2d 90 [1989] ). Although the court asked the parties to keep their inquiries brief, the court did not impose any particular time limit on questioning, and did not improperly curtail any inquiries. Furthermore, defendant has not established any prejudice from any purported restrictions, particularly in light of the court's initial detailed inquiry. By failing to object, by making general objections, and by failing to seek further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve any of his challenges to portions of the
prosecutor's cross-examination of defendant and summation relating to an allegation that defendant committed mortgage fraud. We decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that any error, including the lack of CPL 240.43 notice of intended impeachment, was harmless in light of the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...challenge to County Court's discretionary time restrictions on the jury voir dire process is unpreserved (see People v. Sewnarine, 156 A.D.3d 459, 459–460, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 [2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1087, 79 N.Y.S.3d 109, 103 N.E.3d 1256 [2018] ; People v. Beecham, 74 A.D.3d 1216, 1216, 90......
-
People v. Marlett
...of mental disease or defect (see People v. Jean, 75 N.Y.2d 744, 745, 551 N.Y.S.2d 889, 551 N.E.2d 90 [1989] ; People v. Sewnarine, 156 A.D.3d 459, 459, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 [2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1087, 79 N.Y.S.3d 109, 103 N.E.3d 1256 [2018] ; People v. Erickson, 156 A.D.2d 760, 761, 549 N.......
-
People v. Montello
...401 ).The County Court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge as untimely (see People v. Sewnarine, 156 A.D.3d 459, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 ). Moreover, the People established that the uncalled witness was not under their control (see People v. Anderson, 180 A.D.3d 923......
-
People v. Montello
...932, 935). The County Court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge as untimely (see People v Sewnarine, 156 A.D.3d 459). Moreover, the People established that the uncalled witness was not under their control (see People v Anderson, 180 A.D.3d 923, 924-925, affd......
-
Submission to jury
...Division alternatively held that trial court’s response was legally accurate and responsive to the jury’s question. People v. Sewnarine, 156 A.D.3d 459, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 (1st Dept. 2017). A jury note, which was a memorialized version of oral questions previously raised by the jury and answer......
-
Jury selection
...and entitled plaintiff to a new trial. Zgrodek v. McInerney, 61 A.D.3d 1106, 876 N.Y.S.2d 227 (3d Dept. 2009); see People v. Sewnarine , 156 A.D.3d 459, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 (1st Dept. 2017) (although the trial court asked the parties to keep their inquiries brief, the court did not impose any p......
-
Summation
...(2d Dept. 2018). Missing witness charge was not appropriate where it was untimely made after both sides had rested. People v. Sewnarine, 156 A.D.3d 459, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 (1st Dept. 2018). During a trial for welfare fraud, the defendant was not entitled to a missing witness charge with respec......
-
Jury selection
...and entitled plaintif to a new trial. Zgrodek v. McInerney, 61 A.D.3d 1106, 876 N.Y.S.2d 227 (3d Dept. 2009); People v. Sewnarine , 156 A.D.3d 459, 66 N.Y.S.3d 244 (1st Dept. 2017) (although the trial court asked the parties to keep their inquiries brief, the court did not impose any partic......