People v. Pelczynski, 43 A.D.3d 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Pelczynski, 43 A.D.3d 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Farrington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant's contentions, we conclude that the prosecutor's "comment[s] concerning the failure of [the victim] to testify [were] a fair response to the summation of defense counsel" ( People v Gozdalski , 239 AD2d 896, 897 [4th Dept 1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 858 [1997]; see People v Rowe , 105 AD3d 1088 , 1091 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; People v Green , 43 AD3d 1279 , 1281-1282 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1034 [2008]), and that the prosecutor did not improperly suggest that any uncharged crimes had been committed by defendant ( see Rowe , 105 AD3d at 1091; G…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Goodbread
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
However, the error in admitting the statement into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the statement, was overwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v *1108 Green, 92 AD3d 953, 955-956 [2012]; People v Green, 43 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hampton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In any event, the record contains ample corroborative evidence that the crimes of which he was convicted were committed, and thus the statutory corroboration requirement was met (see People v Chico, 90 NY2d 585, 589-590 [1997]; Green, 43 AD3d at 1281; People v Rutledge, 286 AD2d 962, 962 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 687 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hampton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
In any event, the record contains ample corroborative evidence that the crimes of which he was convicted were committed, and thus the statutory corroboration requirement was met (see People v Chico, 90 NY2d 585, 589-590 [1997]; Green, 43 AD3d at 1281; People v Rutledge, 286 AD2d 962, 962 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 687 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alvarado
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thus, defendant’s contentions in his pro se supplemental brief are not properly before us (see People v Pelczynski, 43 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2007]; People v Coble, 17 AD3d 1165, 1165 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 787 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alvarado
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thus, defendant’s contentions in his pro se supplemental brief are not properly before us (see People v Pelczynski, 43 AD3d 1279, 1279 [2007]; People v Coble, 17 AD3d 1165, 1165 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 787 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Daniel W. Pelczynski
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 28, 2007.
43 A.D.3d 1279
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a resentence of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered May 3, 2005. Defendant was resentenced following his conviction, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the resentence so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), and he now appeals from the resentence upon that conviction. “Because the resentence occurred more than 30 days after the original sentence and there was no timely notice of appeal from the original judgment of conviction, any contentions of defendant with respect to the original judgment of conviction are not properly before us on this appeal” (People v Lard, 23 AD3d 1033 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755, 815 [2005]; see CPL 450.30 [3]; People v Coble, 17 AD3d 1165 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 787 [2005]). By failing to object to the resentencing or to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction based upon the resentencing, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the resentencing (see People v Alford, 272 AD2d 901 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 780 [2001]; see also People v Matthews, 306 AD2d 863 [2003]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.