People v. Mediak, 217 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1995). · Go Syfert
People v. Mediak, 217 A.D.2d 961 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 962 Determining preservation of trial error claims3 citing casesunanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of numerous counts of sodomy, attempted sodomy, incest, attempted incest,…opening of page *962 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 2 listed here
  • People v. Sipp, 2019 NY Slip Op 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2019).published
    As defendant correctly concedes, his contention is not preserved for our review ( see People v Hogue , 133 AD3d 1209 , 1210 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1152 [2016]; People v Mediak , 217 AD2d 961, 962 [4th Dept 1995], lv denied 87 N…
  • People v. Spencer, 119 A.D.3d 1411 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Because defendant did not object to such testimony, however, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Marmulstein, 6 AD3d 879, 881 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 660 [2004]; People v Mediak, 217 AD2d 961, 962 [1…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Christopher Mediak
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 14, 1995.
Published opinion
217 A.D.2d 961
1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8390
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Judgment[*962] unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of numerous counts of sodomy, attempted sodomy, incest, attempted incest, sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s failure to obtain a pretrial Ventimiglia ruling, by Supreme Court’s receipt into evidence of proof of uncharged crimes and by the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction with respect to such evidence.

Defendant failed to object to the admission of the evidence in question, to the People’s failure to seek a Ventimiglia ruling, or to the court’s charge, and did not request a limiting instruction. Thus, defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the proof was not properly admissible on the counts charging defendant with endangering the welfare of a child, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the passing references to prior uncharged crimes, which references were brief and tangential and not likely to divert the jury’s attention from the specific offenses charged in the indictment. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Davis, JJ.