From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vredenburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1985
110 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

April 8, 1985

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


Judgment affirmed.

It was not error for Criminal Term to deny a motion for mistrial brought by defense counsel after a prosecution witness volunteered that he had been asked to take a polygraph test. The court immediately sustained the objection and issued a prompt curative instruction. This corrected the error and minimized the prejudice which otherwise might have resulted from the unsolicited remark ( see, People v. Timmons, 95 A.D.2d 955).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either meritless or harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Vredenburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 8, 1985
110 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Vredenburg

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES VREDENBURG…

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

Date published: Apr 8, 1985

Citations

110 A.D.2d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Sansevero

05; People v. Perez, 162 A.D.2d 477). In any event, any prejudice that may have resulted from the improper…

People v. Malak

Defense counsel's immediate objection to such testimony was sustained, and County Court promptly instructed…