From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dominguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1994
210 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 5, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the term of imprisonment for grand larceny in the fourth degree from 2 to 6 years to 1 1/3 to 4 years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the court allegedly restricted his cross-examination of the complainant at the hearing to determine whether the complainant was sufficiently familiar with the defendant to render a Wade hearing unnecessary (see, People v Rodriguez, 79 N.Y.2d 445; People v Williamson, 79 N.Y.2d 799), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Johnson, 201 A.D.2d 384). In any event, the claim is without merit. It is well settled that the scope of cross-examination rests largely in the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Devanand S., 188 A.D.2d 533; People v Grullon, 177 A.D.2d 398). The hearing court is vested with authority to regulate the taking of oral testimony and to manage the conduct of the examination of witnesses (see, People v Harrison, 151 A.D.2d 778). Here, the court properly sustained an objection to a facially improper question propounded by the defendant's hearing counsel and conducted its own brief questioning of the complainant. The court's questioning clarified the complainant's previous testimony and focused the inquiry on the central issue of the hearing — the complainant's familiarity with the defendant (see, People v Williamson, supra).

As the People correctly concede, the term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years for grand larceny in the fourth degree was illegal since it exceeded the maximum prison term authorized by law (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [e]; [3] [b]). We have reduced the sentence on the above count to the legally permissible maximum indeterminate term of 1 1/3 to 4 years imprisonment (see, People v Satchell, 194 A.D.2d 756).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dominguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 5, 1994
210 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Dominguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ELDO DOMINGUEZ…

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

Date published: Dec 5, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 257

Citing Cases

People v. Wright

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the court improperly participated in…

People v. Moreno

The defendant's contention that the court improperly participated in the hearing is not preserved for…