From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roussopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 17, 1999

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


Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting his cross-examination of witnesses at both the Wade hearing and at the trial of Indictment No. 8500/96. Although the right of cross-examination is constitutionally protected, trial courts retain broad discretion to restrict cross-examination where questions are, among other things, repetitive or of marginal relevancy ( see, People v. McEachern, 237 A.D.2d 381; People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 246).

The defendant's sentence imposed under Indictment No. 8500/96 was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.

S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roussopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1999
261 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Roussopoulos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent v. JOHN ROUSSOPOULOS…

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

Date published: May 17, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 902

Citing Cases

The People v. Baranek

The right of cross-examination is an essential safeguard of fact-finding accuracy and "the principal means by…

People v. Sobers [2d Dept 2000

an indication of dishonesty that goes to the very heart of the question of that individual's testimonial…