Smith v. Palone, 226 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Smith v. Palone, 226 A.D.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that such testimony constituted bolstering, we conclude that it was properly admitted after defendant suggested through cross-examination of the victim that his testimony may have been motivated by the possibility of favorable treatment in his own case (see People v Santana, 55 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 762 [2009]; People v Hayes, 226 AD2d 1055, 1055-1056 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 936 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that such testimony constituted bolstering, we conclude that it was properly admitted after defendant suggested through cross-examination of the victim that his testimony may have been motivated by the possibility of favorable treatment in his own case (see People v Santana, 55 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 762 [2009]; People v Hayes, 226 AD2d 1055, 1055-1056 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 936 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Santana
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
We thus conclude that the attorney did not implicitly testify concerning the informant’s credibility in violation of the Confrontation Clause or the advocate-witness rule (cf. United States v Roberts, 618 F2d 530 [1980]), nor did her testimony usurp the jury’s function to assess the informant’s credibility (see People v Hayes, 226 AD2d 1055, 1056 [1996] lv denied 88 NY2d 936 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis F. Smith
v.
Gary J. Palone, Appellants-Respondents
Appeal No. 2.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 19, 1996.
226 A.D.2d 1055
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that plaintiffs complied with the requirements of Town Law § 268 and therefore may maintain this action. Further, the court properly determined that this action is not barred by res judicata. The record supports the court’s determination that defendants illegally expanded the operation of Paradise Speedway (the speedway), a pre-existing non-conforming use, when they expanded onto certain other properties and changed the character of the vehicles raced at the speedway to include stock cars. Therefore, the court properly granted plaintiffs a permanent injunction prohibiting that expansion. The scope of the injunction must be modified, however, to permit defendants to use the property in the same manner and to the same extent that it was used in 1975, the effective date of the Town of Phelps Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, we modify the judgment by permitting as a pre-existing non-conforming use the operation of four-cylinder modified vehicles, in addition to go-carts and motorcycles, at racing activities conducted at the speedway. We further modify the judgment by permitting the western portion of the existing speedway located on the so-called "JCG/ Nash” property to continue as a pre-existing non-conforming use. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J.—Permanent Injunction.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.