From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Russtic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1995
211 A.D.2d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 24, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).


Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and giving due deference to the factfinder's evaluations of credibility (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495), defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming, legally sufficient evidence and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant failed to preserve his present claim that the prosecutor exceeded the court's Sandoval ruling (CPL 470.05). Since defendant's own testimony, in an attempt at exculpation, opened the door to corrective questioning by the prosecutor (People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646), we decline to review in the interest of justice. Defendant failed to challenge the effectiveness of his trial representation pursuant to CPL 440.10, thereby depriving this Court of an adequate record for review. From the present state of the record, we cannot conclude that defendant was denied meaningful representation.

We have examined defendant's remaining contentions, including those posed in his pro se brief, and find them without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Russtic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1995
211 A.D.2d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Russtic

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH RUSSTIC, Also…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 543 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 567

Citing Cases

People v. Ortiz

Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit since the court properly balanced the probative…