People v. Stahl

• Decision Date: 11 June 1981
• Citation: People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 442 N.Y.S.2d 488, 425 N.E.2d 876 (N.Y. 1981)
• Parties: , 425 N.E.2d 876 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward STAHL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 488

442 N.Y.S.2d 488

53 N.Y.2d 1048, 425 N.E.2d 876

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Edward STAHL, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 11, 1981.

Nathan R. Sobel, Brooklyn, and David Lenefsky, New York City, for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Amyjane Rettew and Robert M. Pitler, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 75 A.D.2d 765, 427 N.Y.S.2d 895 should be affirmed.

There was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict on both counts.The contention that the judgment of conviction must be set aside for failure of proof that the conversation to which the evasive answer was addressed did in fact occur was not preserved for appellate review in consequence of the absence of specific reference to the asserted deficiency as a basis for the general motion for a trial order of dismissal (People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26, 33, n.2, 424 N.Y.S.2d 146, 399 N.E.2d 1167).Nor was any protest registered concerning the trial court's omission to charge the jury with respect to the necessity for such proof.Indeed, this contention appears to have first been advanced on defendant's behalf on the motion for reargument in the Appellate Division.

We cannot say that it was error to refuse the offer of proof made by defendant with respect to the testimony of the proposed judicial witness.

The contention that the verdicts of the jury were "repugnant" was not preserved for our review in...