From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Robert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 2, 1995

Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (Sparrow, J.).


Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant's claim that he was improperly cross-examined on a prior charge is without merit. The District Attorney ultimately terminated the prior charge for unspecified reasons. Such a termination does not constitute an acquittal, or a dismissal on the merits, which would bar cross-examination of the underlying acts (see, e.g., People v. Matthews, 68 N.Y.2d 118, 123; People v Vidal, 26 N.Y.2d 249, 253; cf., People v. Santiago, 15 N.Y.2d 640, 641). Moreover, the record shows that the questions were asked in good faith and had a basis in fact (see, e.g., People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 200; People v. Booker, 134 A.D.2d 949). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Robert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Robert

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ROBERT T., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 915

Citing Cases

Jamison v. Grier

); United States v. Bolin, 35 F.3d 306, 308-09 (7th Cir. 1994) (approving jury charge that accomplice's…

Donahue v. the Quikrete Companies

The fact that the alleged act occurred "about 17 years" prior to the trial does not render the…