From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(Ind. No. 6151/97)

Submitted June 8, 2001.

August 20, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), rendered January 9, 1998, convicting him of bail jumping in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Gautam Rana of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that a court file was improperly admitted into evidence pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see, CPLR 4518) because no adequate foundation was laid. However, the defendant's failure to object to the admission of the file or the accompanying foundation testimony at trial renders his present contention unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hutchinson, 255 A.D.2d 396; People v. Antongiorgi, 242 A.D.2d 578). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see, People v. Sanchez, 260 A.D.2d 178; People v. Edmonds, 251 A.D.2d 197; People v. Pierre, 157 A.D.2d 750).


Summaries of

People v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 20, 2001
286 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. ALEX BELL, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Aug 20, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
729 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

People v. Verrilli

In any event, given the education and employment history of both witnesses, who were registered nurses, the…

People v. Rath

Without making an objection thereto the Defendant “is assumed to have consented to its injection into the…