jury with a limiting instruction in New York

2018However, any error that may have been occasioned by the admission of the impeachment evidence, the court's improper [*2]questioning or the court's failure to immediately provide the jury with a limiting instruction regarding the proper evaluation of the impeachment evidence was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the errors contributed to his convictions ( see People v Saez, 69 NY2d 802, 804 ; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 241-242 ; cf. People v Mendes , 3 NY3d at 122).

2015However, any error that may have been occasioned by the admission of the impeachment evidence, or in the court’s failure to immediately provide the jury with a limiting instruction regarding the proper evaluation of the impeachment evidence, was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the limited nature of the challenged impeachment evidence posed no significant probability that the error affected the verdict (see People v Saez, 69 NY2d 802 [1987]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).

2021Evidence of defendant's ultimate refusal to take a chemical breath test after being afforded two opportunities to talk to her attorney before deciding whether to take the test was admissible to show consciousness of guilt ( see People v MacDonald , 89 [*2]NY2d 908, 910 [1996]; People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 [1978]; People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 [2016]), and the District Court provided the jury with a limiting instruction on this point ( see People v MacDonald ,89 NY2d at 910).

2021With respect to the evidence presented of defendant's two attempts to take a portable breath test (PBT) at the scene, for which there were no results because defendant provided insufficient breath samples, it is well settled that, while evidence of a PBT is not admissible as proof of intoxication ( see People v Palencia, 130 AD3d 1072 [2015]; People v Krut , 133 AD3d 781, 784 [2015]; People v Kulk , 103 AD3d 1038, 1040 [2013]), evidence of a defendant's failure to properly take a PBT can be admitted to show consciousness of guilt ( see People v MacDonald , 89 NY2d at 910), "particularly in lig

2021With respect to the evidence presented of defendant's two attempts to take a portable breath test (PBT) at the scene, for which there were no results because defendant provided insufficient breath samples, it is well settled that, while evidence of a PBT is not admissible as proof of intoxication ( see People v Palencia, 130 AD3d 1072 [2015]; People v Krut , 133 AD3d 781, 784 [2015]; People v Kulk , 103 AD3d 1038, 1040 [2013]), evidence of a defendant's failure to properly take a PBT can be admitted to show consciousness of guilt ( see People v MacDonald , 89 NY2d at 910), "particularly in lig

2021Evidence of defendant's ultimate refusal to take a chemical breath test after being afforded two opportunities to talk to her attorney before deciding whether to take the test was admissible to show consciousness of guilt ( see People v MacDonald , 89 [*2]NY2d 908, 910 [1996]; People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 [1978]; People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 [2016]), and the District Court provided the jury with a limiting instruction on this point ( see People v MacDonald ,89 NY2d at 910).

2021With respect to the evidence presented of defendant's two attempts to take a portable breath test (PBT) at the scene, for which there were no results because defendant provided insufficient breath samples, it is well settled that, while evidence of a PBT is not admissible as proof of intoxication ( see People v Palencia, 130 AD3d 1072 [2015]; People v Krut , 133 AD3d 781, 784 [2015]; People v Kulk , 103 AD3d 1038, 1040 [2013]), evidence of a defendant's failure to properly take a PBT can be admitted to show consciousness of guilt ( see People v MacDonald , 89 NY2d at 910), "particularly in lig

2021Nevertheless, defendant's trial attorney's error in failing to object to the admission of the evidence of the PBTs, without more, "was not so serious as to compromise defendant's right to a fair trial and did not constitute ineffective assistance" ( People v Stover , 178 AD3d 1138 , 1147 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Every , 146 AD3d 1157, 1165-1166 [2017], affd 29 NY3d 1103 [2017]).

2021Nevertheless, defendant's trial attorney's error in failing to object to the admission of the evidence of the PBTs, without more, "was not so serious as to compromise defendant's right to a fair trial and did not constitute ineffective assistance" ( People v Stover , 178 AD3d 1138 , 1147 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Every , 146 AD3d 1157, 1165-1166 [2017], affd 29 NY3d 1103 [2017]).

2021Evidence of defendant's ultimate refusal to take a chemical breath test after being afforded two opportunities to talk to her attorney before deciding whether to take the test was admissible to show consciousness of guilt ( see People v MacDonald , 89 [*2]NY2d 908, 910 [1996]; People v Thomas , 46 NY2d 100, 106 [1978]; People v Sirico , 135 AD3d 19, 23 [2016]), and the District Court provided the jury with a limiting instruction on this point ( see People v MacDonald ,89 NY2d at 910).

2020Accordingly, reversal is not warranted on this basis ( see People v Gregory , 78 AD3d 1246, 1246-1247 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 831 [2011]).

2020In addition, County Court, on multiple occasions, provided the jury with a limiting instruction ( see People v McCottery , 90 AD3d at 1325 ; People v Davis , 23 AD3d 833, 835 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 811 [2006]).

2010However, that issue is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not object to the court’s instructions, request a limiting instruction, or move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Yaghnam, 135 AD2d 763, 764 [1987]).

2010The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide the jury with a limiting instruction as to the weakness of flight evidence as an indication of guilt (see People v Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304 [1963]).