People v. Coleman, 96 A.D.3d 1484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Coleman, 96 A.D.3d 1484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Brisman (ny, 2025-01-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brisman (2×)
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
Abuse of discretion is, for example, the standard appellate courts use in reviewing a challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial ( see id. ), and a reversal or modification based on such abuse of discretion is one made on the law ( see People v Mawhiney , 220 AD3d 1055, 1060 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208, 210, 215 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Salim , 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; see also CPL 470.15 [4] [a]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brisman
NY · 2025 · confidence medium
Abuse of discretion is, for example, the standard appellate courts use in reviewing a challenge to the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial ( see id. ), and a reversal or modification based on such abuse of discretion is one made on the law ( see People v Mawhiney , 220 AD3d 1055 , 1060 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Singleton , 139 AD3d 208, 210, 215 [1st Dept 2016]; People v Salim , 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; see also CPL 470.15 [4] [a]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pabon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the mother’s reasons for moving to Puerto Rico and the state of her relationship with defendant were not material issues in this case and, therefore, defendant was not entitled to introduce evidence to impeach the victim’s credibility on that collateral issue (see People v Salim, 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; People v Clarkson, 78 AD3d 1573 , 1574 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 829 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Pabon
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the mother’s reasons for moving to Puerto Rico and the state of her relationship with defendant were not material issues in this case and, therefore, defendant was not entitled to introduce evidence to impeach the victim’s credibility on that collateral issue (see People v Salim, 96 AD3d 1484, 1485 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1028 [2012]; People v Clarkson, 78 AD3d 1573 , 1574 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 829 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. DeFreitas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The general rule of evidence in this State concerning the impeachment of witnesses with respect to collateral matters is that the cross-examiner is bound by the answers of the witness to questions concerning collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility. . . . [Hence,] the party who is cross-examining a witness cannot introduce extrinsic documentary evidence or call other witnesses to contradict a witness’ answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching that witness’ credibility” (People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 288-289 [1983] [internal quotatio…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. DeFreitas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“The general rule of evidence in this State concerning the impeachment of witnesses with respect to collateral matters is that the cross-examiner is bound by the answers of the witness to questions concerning collateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility. . . . [Hence,] the party who is cross-examining a witness cannot introduce extrinsic documentary evidence or call other witnesses to contradict a witness’ answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching that witness’ credibility” (People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 288-289 [1983] [internal quotatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Kerry Coleman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2012.
96 A.D.3d 1484
Published

— Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered December 3, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]) and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People established by the requisite preponderance of the evidence at the violation hearing that he committed acts that constitute harassment in the second degree and thus committed an additional offense in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation (see CPL 410.10 [2]; 410.70 [1], [3]; People v Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 756 [2009]; People v Schneider, 188 AD2d 754, 755-756 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 892 [1993]).

We reject defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest with defense counsel at the violation hearing. Defendant failed to “show that ‘the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest,’ or that the conflict ‘operated on’ the representation” (People v Ortiz, 76 NY2d 652, 657 [1990]; see People v Konstantinides, 14 NY3d 1, 10 [2009]). Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.