People v. Love, 244 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Love, 244 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · …is 10 more minutes sufficient time, or do you need more? at p. 431 ⚠ not in text
18 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Palacios (Eduardo) (nyappterm, 2025-03-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Palacios (Eduardo) (4×)
N.Y. App. Term. · 2025 · confidence medium
Here, the court's limitation, which was made after first inquiring about how much more time counsel needed to complete summation and then, after warning counsel to "start wrapping [*2]up," was a sound exercise of discretion ( see People v Love , 244 AD2d 431, 431 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 876 [1997] ; People v Brown, 136 AD2d at 16-17).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aparicio v. Artuz
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 278-279 , 464 N.Y.S.2d 454 , 451 N.E.2d 212 (1983); People v. Love, 244 A.D.2d 431 , 664 N.Y.S.2d 91, 92 (2d Dep't 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aparicio v. Artuz
2d Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 278-279 , 464 N.Y.S.2d 454 , 451 N.E.2d 212 (1983); People v. Love, 244 A.D.2d 431 , 664 N.Y.S.2d 91, 92 (2d Dep’t 1997).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Gibian
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s considerably shorter summation, which spans close to 60 pages of the trial transcript, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, claiming, inter alia, that he had not had sufficient time to complete his summation “in a proper fashion.” The trial court denied the motion, stating that defense counsel had “more than ample time to sum up on this case.” It is beyond cavil that “closing argument for the defense is a basic element of the adversary factfinding process in a criminal trial” (Herring v New York, 422 US 853, 858 [1975]; see People v Love, 24…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Stokely Love
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 10, 1997.
244 A.D.2d 431
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11235
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), rendered November 13, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing his request for an expanded identification charge. Although it is better practice for a court to administer an expanded identification charge when there is a close question of identity, the failure to so charge does not constitute reversible error per se (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 278-279). Whether the charge is appropriate in an individual case is a matter for the Trial Judge’s discretion (see, People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873). “A Judge who gives a general instruction on weighing witnesses’ credibility and who states that identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt has made an accurate statement of the law” (People v Whalen, supra, at 279).

We conclude that inasmuch as the trial court delivered instructions regarding the identification of the defendant, the general factors to be considered in evaluating the witnesses’ credibility, and the People’s burden of proving identification beyond a reasonable doubt, its charge was proper (see, People v Knight, supra; People v Whalen, supra; People v Barry, 215 AD2d 397; People v Williams, 215 AD2d 515; People v Washington, 209 AD2d 733; People v Syshawn, 200 AD2d 778).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in placing a time limitation on counsels’ summations. While it is true that closing argument is a basic element of the defense in a criminal case, the trial court is given great latitude in controlling the duration and scope of summation (see, People v Brown, 136 AD2d 1, 16). Here, the court’s limitation, which applied to both the prosecution and the defense, was a sound exercise of its discretion (see, People v Troy, 209 AD2d 943, 944).

[*432] The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.