From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no error in the trial court's refusal to sanction the People for the destruction of a surveillance videotape prior to trial. There was no showing of bad faith on the part of the People, and the evidentiary value of the videotape was questionable. Photographs of two frames from the videotape were admitted into evidence, and there was testimony that the quality of these photographs equaled that of the videotape. Defense counsel explored the destruction of the videotape both in cross-examination and in summation. Given the minimal prejudice to the defendant, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to sanction the People ( see, People v. Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217; People v. McIntosh, 184 A.D.2d 662).

It was not improper for the trial court to curtail cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding prior bad acts of which the witness had been accused, inasmuch as the witness had alerted the court to his intention to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination ( see, People v. Thomas, 51 N.Y.2d 466, 472-473; People v. Sapia, 41 N.Y.2d 160, 163-164, cert denied 434 U.S. 823; People v. Starr, 213 A.D.2d 758).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05), or without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DUANE PEREZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 550

Citing Cases

People v. Santiago

Contrary to the defendant's contention, since there was no showing of undue suggestiveness, the People were…

People v. Rolle

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not…