People v. Valenti

• Decision Date: 09 December 1993
• Citation: 199 A.D.2d 617,604 N.Y.S.2d 652
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip A. VALENTI, Jr., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 652

604 N.Y.S.2d 652

199 A.D.2d 617

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Philip A. VALENTI, Jr., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Dec. 9, 1993.

Hollie E. Bethmann, Troy, for appellant.

Sol Greenberg, Dist. Atty. (Michael G. Gaynor, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.

WEISS, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Keegan, J.), rendered November 18, 1991, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of driving while intoxicated, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, resisting arrest and reckless driving.

At approximately 1:40 A.M. on September 11, 1990 in the City of Watervliet, Albany County, defendant was observed to have improperly stopped at a traffic signal by Patrolman John Brandt, who was operating a marked police unit. Although Brandt activated his dome lights, the vehicle refused to pull over and instead led Brandt on a high-speed chase into the neighboring Town of Colonie. Defendant fled the vehicle and, after a brief foot chase, was caught, wrestled to the ground and arrested. After trial, defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, resisting arrest and reckless driving.

On this appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred in its Sandoval ruling (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) by allowing inquiry on cross-examination of defendant into a 1981 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance and a 1982 violation of probation. The convictions were not so remote in time as to lack bearing on defendant's credibility (see, People v. Sargent, 194 A.D.2d 865, 598 N.Y.S.2d 851) and the rulings were a proper exercise of discretion, balancing a proper inquiry concerning defendant's credibility against unfair prejudice (see, People v. Tucker, 165 A.D.2d 900, 560 N.Y.S.2d 510). Nor do we find that error occurred when defendant was asked if his 1989 and 1990 violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law were misdemeanors. Moreover, by not objecting to the questions, defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal (see, CPL 470.05[2].

County Court did err during the cross-examination of defendant by permitting references to the underlying conduct of his 1982 probation violation and the 1989 conviction because both involved police chases similar to the instant case (see, People v. Sandoval, supra, at 377, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286). Further, defendant correctly contends that the People improperly cross-examined him concerning the veracity of Brandt's testimony (see, People v. Ely, 164 A.D.2d 442, 446, 563 N.Y.S.2d 890, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 905, 569 N.Y.S.2d 937, 572 N.E.2d 620). However, we cannot find that these errors mandate reversal as there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the errors (see, People v. Townsend, 134 A.D.2d 730, 731, 521 N.Y.S.2d 550; see also, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Ely, supra). A review of these errors in the context of the case reveals that the case against defendant was exceptionally strong and only a limited potential for prejudicial impact resulted from the errors.

Defendant's remaining contentions do not require extended discussion. The prosecution properly inquired into his postarrest silence concerning the identity of the person he claimed was driving the vehicle because he insisted before and after arrest that he was not the driver (see, People v. Savage, 50 N.Y.2d 673, 431 N.Y.S.2d 382, 409 N.E.2d 858, cert. denied 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475; People v. Aponte, 180 A.D.2d 910, 580...