From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Toval

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's challenges to two prospective jurors for cause. "The determination as to whether a prospective juror can provide reasonable jury service in a given case is left largely to the discretion of the trial court, which can question and observe the prospective juror during voir dire" (People v Pagan, 191 A.D.2d 651, 651-652; see also, People v. Holder, 204 A.D.2d 482). Here, neither prospective juror possessed a state of mind which would have precluded the defendant from receiving a fair trial (see, CPL 270.20). Accordingly, the defendant's contentions are without merit.

The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

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


Summaries of

People v. Toval

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1995
216 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Toval

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ERIC TOVAL, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 19, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 556

Citing Cases

Shaofan Gong v. Dow Jones & Co.

" However, "New York does not recognize a tort...for placing someone in a false light.'" Cruz v Latin News…

People v. Callaghan

The trial court properly denied the defendant's challenges for cause of two prospective jurors. "The…