People v. Fuller

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Lawrence

    221 A.D.3d 1583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Initially, contrary to the People's assertion, defendant's contention is preserved for our review. Defendant "expressly [or impliedly] requested, without success on the ground now advanced on appeal, a ruling that the People not be permitted to cross-examine him regarding the [ostensible] prior conviction, and he ‘is deemed to have thereby protested the court's ultimate disposition of the matter or failure to rule ... accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such disposition or failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered’ " ( People v. Fuller , 174 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 104 N.Y.S.3d 495 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 951, 110 N.Y.S.3d 645, 134 N.E.3d 644 [2019], quoting CPL 470.05 [2] ; seePeople v. Herman , 217 A.D.3d 1469, 1471, 194 N.Y.S.3d 358 [4th Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 997, 197 N.Y.S.3d 100, 219 N.E.3d 861 [2023] ; see generallyPeople v. Jackson , 29 N.Y.3d 18, 23-24, 52 N.Y.S.3d 63, 74 N.E.3d 302 [2017] ). Nonetheless, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in allowing the challenged question because "a plea nolo contendere with adjudication withheld in Florida ... does not constitute a conviction under Florida law" ( Matter of Farabell v. Town of Macedon , 62 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 877 N.Y.S.2d 796 [4th Dept. 2009] ), we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as "the proof of guilt was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted had the error not occurred" ( People v. Grant , 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52 [2006] ; seePeople v. Rivera , 132 A.D.2d 956, 957, 518 N.Y.S.2d

  2. People v. Lawrence

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 5914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Initially, contrary to the People's assertion, defendant's contention is preserved for our review. Defendant "expressly [or impliedly] requested, without success on the ground now advanced on appeal, a ruling that the People not be permitted to cross-examine him regarding the [ostensible] prior conviction, and he 'is deemed to have thereby protested the court's ultimate disposition of the matter or failure to rule... accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such disposition or failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered'" (People v Fuller, 174 A.D.3d 1335, 1336 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 951 [2019], quoting CPL 470.05 [2]; see People v Herman, 217 A.D.3d 1469, 1471 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 997 [2023]; see generally People v Jackson, 29 N.Y.3d 18, 23-24 [2017]). Nonetheless, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in allowing the challenged question because "a plea nolo contendere with adjudication withheld in Florida... does not constitute a conviction under Florida law" (Matter of Farabell v Town of Macedon, 62 A.D.3d 1246, 1247 [4th Dept 2009]), we conclude that the error is harmless inasmuch as "the proof of guilt was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted had the error not occurred" (People v Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424 [2006]; see People v Rivera, 132 A.D.2d 956, 957 [4th Dept 1987]; People v Grossman, 125 A.D.2d 985, 986 [4th Dept 1986], lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 881 [1987]).

  3. People v. Herman

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 3569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Initially, we conclude that his contention is preserved for our review. Here, defendant "expressly requested, without success on the ground now advanced on appeal, a ruling that the People not be permitted to cross-examine him regarding the prior conviction, and he 'is deemed to have thereby protested the court's ultimate disposition of the matter or failure to rule... accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such disposition or failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered'" (People v Fuller, 174 A.D.3d 1335, 1336 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 951 [2019], quoting CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Jackson, 29 N.Y.3d 18, 23-24 [2017]). Defendant's contention, however, lacks merit.

  4. People v. Herman

    217 A.D.3d 1469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Initially, we conclude that his contention is preserved for our review. Here, defendant "expressly requested, without success on the ground now advanced on appeal, a ruling that the People not be permitted to cross-examine him regarding the prior conviction, and he ‘is deemed to have thereby protested the court's ultimate disposition of the matter or failure to rule ... accordingly sufficiently to raise a question of law with respect to such disposition or failure regardless of whether any actual protest thereto was registered’ " ( People v. Fuller , 174 A.D.3d 1335, 1336, 104 N.Y.S.3d 495 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 951, 110 N.Y.S.3d 645, 134 N.E.3d 644 [2019], quoting CPL 470.05 [2] ; see generallyPeople v Jackson , 29 N.Y.3d 18, 23-24, 52 N.Y.S.3d 63, 74 N.E.3d 302 [2017] ). Defendant's contention, however, lacks merit.