People v. Greening, 254 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
People v. Greening, 254 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Hare (nyappdiv, 2006-03-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hare
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review her contentions that County Court’s Sandoval ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see People v Brown, 16 AD3d 1102, 1103 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 760 [2005]), that the court erred in admitting certain testimony of her former husband that was protected by the spousal privilege (see People v Egan, 103 AD2d 940, 941 [1984]), that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to recall the victim as a witness (see People v Cunningham, 13 AD3d 1118 , 1119-1120 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 829 [2005]), and that she was deprived of a fair trial by p…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Coleman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during summation by vouching for the credibility of a witness who was receiving a benefit from testifying (see People v Cox, 256 AD2d 1244 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 923 [1999]; People v Greening, 254 AD2d 739, 740 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1032 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Howington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to join in codefendant’s Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory challenge to a black prospective juror and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in denying that Bat- son challenge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally, People v Greening, 254 AD2d 739 , lv denied 92 NY2d 1032 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Ruth Greening
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 2, 1998.
254 A.D.2d 739
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her after a jury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]). We reject the contentions of defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to recuse itself (see, People v Bennett, 238 AD2d 898, 899, lv denied 90 NY2d 890, cert denied 524 US 918) and in summarily denying her motion to set aside the verdict (see, CPL 330.30 [3]; 330.40). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that she was deprived of her right to an impartial jury because the court improperly precluded defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors with respect to possible bias concerning police witnesses. Only codefendant’s attorney attempted to ask questions concerning that issue, and defendant may not rely on an objection by codefendant’s attorney during the joint trial to preserve an issue (see, People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843, 846; People v Klavoon, 207 AD2d 979, 980, lv denied 84 NY2d 908). In any event, we note that we rejectedthe same contention[*740] made by codefendant (see, People v Bennett, supra, at 898-899). Finally, defendant contends that she was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on cross-examination of defendant and on summation. Defendant did not object to the comments of the prosecutor on summation or to some of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant, thereby failing to preserve for our review those alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). In any event, although some of the conduct of the prosecutor was improper, it was not so egregious that it deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Church, 244 AD2d 953). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Tills, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.