People v. Matos, 158 A.D.2d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Matos, 158 A.D.2d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …to blunt the effect of anticipated impeachment at p. 959 ⚠ not in text
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCullough
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the failure to disclose the accusatory instrument did not violate CPL 240.45 (1) (a) or the Rosario rule because the shooting victim’s statements therein did not relate to the subject matter of his testimony (see CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154 , 158-159 [1985]; People v Matos, 158 AD2d 959, 959 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 968 [1990]), notwithstanding that the prosecutor asked the shooting victim about his pending criminal actions on direct examination “to blunt the effect of anticipated impeachment” (People v Harrell, 251 AD2d 240, 241…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McCullough
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the failure to disclose the accusatory instrument did not violate CPL 240.45 (1) (a) or the Rosario rule because the shooting victim’s statements therein did not relate to the subject matter of his testimony (see CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154 , 158-159 [1985]; People v Matos, 158 AD2d 959, 959 [1990], lv denied 75 NY2d 968 [1990]), notwithstanding that the prosecutor asked the shooting victim about his pending criminal actions on direct examination “to blunt the effect of anticipated impeachment” (People v Harrell, 251 AD2d 240, 241…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Howard
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
In our view, this evidence was sufficient to prove that the stolen VISA card was a "credit card” as defined in General Business Law § 511 (1) (see, People v Ames, 115 AD2d 545 , lv denied 67 NY2d 759 ; see also, People v Davis-Ivery, 158 AD2d 959 , lv denied 75 NY2d 965 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Michael Matos
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 2, 1990.
158 A.D.2d 959
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the prosecutor’s request to reopen his direct case to offer evidence from a codefendant. The decision to reopen a case during trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654; People v Dixon, 147 AD2d 769, 773). Further, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment (see, Penal Law § 40.05). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see, People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750), we conclude that the defense of entrapment is not supported by a reasonable view of the evidence (see, People v DeGina, 72 NY2d 768; People v Butts, supra; People v Thompson, 47 NY2d 940).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and we find them either unpreserved for our review or, where preserved, to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.