properly limited defense in New York

2017In any event, the court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Desjardins, 113 AD3d at 788; People v Nails, 95 AD3d at 1237 ).

2014In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Nails, 95 AD3d 1237 [2012]; People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 226 [2013]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d 677 [2005]; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115 [2003]).

2014In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Nails, 95 AD3d 1237 [2012]; People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 226 [2013]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d 677 [2005]; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115 [2003]).

2014In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Nails, 95 AD3d 1237 [2012]; People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 226 [2013]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d 677 [2005]; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115 [2003]).

2014In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Nails, 95 AD3d 1237 [2012]; People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 226 [2013]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d 677 [2005]; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115 [2003]).

2014In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Nails, 95 AD3d 1237 [2012]; People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 226 [2013]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d 677 [2005]; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115 [2003]).

2013Although CPL 60.42 (5) vests the trial court with the discretion to consider the admission of evidence of a victim’s sexual conduct “in the interests of justice” (see People v Halter, 19 NY3d 1046, 1049 [2012]), here, the limited value in allowing detailed evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual encounter to be adduced on cross-examination was outweighed by the complainant’s statutory right to confidentiality and the prejudicial nature of the evidence (see People v Scott, 67 AD3d 1052, 1055 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 589 [2011]; People v White, 261 AD2d 653, 655-656 [1999]; see also People v Halt

2013Although CPL 60.42 (5) vests the trial court with the discretion to consider the admission of evidence of a victim’s sexual conduct “in the interests of justice” (see People v Halter, 19 NY3d 1046, 1049 [2012]), here, the limited value in allowing detailed evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual encounter to be adduced on cross-examination was outweighed by the complainant’s statutory right to confidentiality and the prejudicial nature of the evidence (see People v Scott, 67 AD3d 1052, 1055 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 589 [2011]; People v White, 261 AD2d 653, 655-656 [1999]; see also People v Halt

2012In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572, 1573 [2011]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d at 678 ; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115, 116 [2003]; People v Pepe, 262 AD2d 7, 7-8 [1999]; People v Bistonath, 216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]; People v Turner, 212 AD2d 818 [1995]).

2012In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572, 1573 [2011]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d at 678 ; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115, 116 [2003]; People v Pepe, 262 AD2d 7, 7-8 [1999]; People v Bistonath, 216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]; People v Turner, 212 AD2d 818 [1995]).

2012In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572, 1573 [2011]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d at 678 ; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115, 116 [2003]; People v Pepe, 262 AD2d 7, 7-8 [1999]; People v Bistonath, 216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]; People v Turner, 212 AD2d 818 [1995]).

2012In any event, the trial court properly limited defense counsel’s summation remarks under the circumstances of this case (see People v Thomas, 85 AD3d 1572, 1573 [2011]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d at 678 ; People v Ramos, 305 AD2d 115, 116 [2003]; People v Pepe, 262 AD2d 7, 7-8 [1999]; People v Bistonath, 216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]; People v Turner, 212 AD2d 818 [1995]).

2020In addition, we note that defense counsel never stated that his goal in pursuing this line of questioning was to establish a motive to lie ( see People v Hicks , 88 AD3d at 818 ).

2018The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation is not preserved for appellate review because the defendant either failed to object to the prosecutor's statements or made only general objections, and did not seek curative instructions or move for a mistrial when his objections were sustained ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Morris , 2 AD3d 652 ; People v McHarris , 297 AD2d 824, 825 ).

2018Here, the court properly limited defense counsel's cross-examination of the complainant because counsel's line of inquiry, in addition to being without foundation, would have caused the jury to speculate about irrelevant matters and matters not in evidence ( see People v Kinard , 215 AD2d at 591 ; People v Hendricks , 214 AD2d 584 ; People v Thomas , 141 AD2d 782 ).

2018Here, the court properly limited defense counsel's cross-examination of the complainant because counsel's line of inquiry, in addition to being without foundation, would have caused the jury to speculate about irrelevant matters and matters not in evidence ( see People v Kinard , 215 AD2d at 591 ; People v Hendricks , 214 AD2d 584 ; People v Thomas , 141 AD2d 782 ).

2018Here, the court properly limited defense counsel's cross-examination of the complainant because counsel's line of inquiry, in addition to being without foundation, would have caused the jury to speculate about irrelevant matters and matters not in evidence ( see People v Kinard , 215 AD2d at 591 ; People v Hendricks , 214 AD2d 584 ; People v Thomas , 141 AD2d 782 ).

2018The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation is not preserved for appellate review because the defendant either failed to object to the prosecutor's statements or made only general objections, and did not seek curative instructions or move for a mistrial when his objections were sustained ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Morris , 2 AD3d 652 ; People v McHarris , 297 AD2d 824, 825 ).

2017The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

2004The trial court properly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses (see People v Messa, 299 AD2d 495 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 597 [2003]).

2001Further, the court properly limited defense counsel’s impeachment of a prosecution witness (see generally, People v Victory, 33 NY2d 75, 88-89 , cert denied 416 US 905 ).

2001Further, the court properly limited defense counsel’s impeachment of a prosecution witness (see generally, People v Victory, 33 NY2d 75, 88-89 , cert denied 416 US 905 ).

1996While a defendant does have the right to introduce evidence that a person other than himself committed the crime (see, Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284 ), the evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime.

1996The court properly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses (see, People v Austin, 112 AD2d 242, 243 ).

1985The court properly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of Simone regarding the facts underlying his criminal conviction, as to which an appeal was still pending, since his appeal could have resulted in a new trial (see, Matter of Jaime T., 96 Misc 2d 173 ; Knight v Maybee, 44 Misc 2d 152 ; Klein v Harris, 667 F2d 274; Prentice v Hsu, 280 F Supp 384 ).

1985The court properly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of Simone regarding the facts underlying his criminal conviction, as to which an appeal was still pending, since his appeal could have resulted in a new trial (see, Matter of Jaime T., 96 Misc 2d 173 ; Knight v Maybee, 44 Misc 2d 152 ; Klein v Harris, 667 F2d 274; Prentice v Hsu, 280 F Supp 384 ).