People v. Castellano, 97 N.Y.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Castellano, 97 N.Y.2d 680 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Romero (nyappdiv, 2008-09-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Romero
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The prosecutor’s improper comment in summation, accusing the defendant of an uncharged crime, was also harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Castellano, 284 AD2d 406, 407 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Smiley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
However, the defendant’s contention that the remaining counts must be reversed because he was prejudiced by the introduction of evidence regarding the dismissed count is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Castellano, 284 AD 2d 406, 407 [2001]; CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Williams, 292 AD2d 474, 475 [2002]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Peter Castellano
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 11, 2001.
✓ 97 N.Y.2d 680
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the[*407] defendant from a judgment of the Supre • ; >>*.. 5, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered February 27 wicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a ; v vehicle in the first degree and criminal possession of stc i iii property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the admission of evidence regarding an uncharged crime is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, any error in admitting this evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Castro, 261 AD2d 553; People v Davis, 259 AD2d 706; People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.