People
v.
Dov

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts.Jun 29, 2012
36 Misc. 3d 132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
36 Misc. 3d 132957 N.Y.S.2d 2652012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51300

No. 2010–3188 N CR.

2012-06-29

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert DOV, Appellant.


Present: MOLIA, J.P., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ.


Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Woodsburgh, Nassau County (Carol F. Isaac, J.), rendered March 18, 2010. The judgments convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to stop at a stop sign and failing to obey a traffic control device, respectively.

ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172[a] ) and failing to obey a traffic control device (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110[a] ).

Defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the trial proof are unpreserved ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ), and we find that the circumstances of this case do not merit an exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Defendant's argument that the prosecutor improperly asked leading questions in violation of defendant's due process right to a fair trial is unpreserved, as defendant failed to assert a constitutional objection to these inquiries at trial (see People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217 [1996];People v. Milan, 45 AD3d 255 [2007];People v.. Schindler, 27 Misc.3d 127[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50578[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010] ). To the extent that defendant's claim is preserved as a state law evidentiary issue, we find that none of the prosecutor's questions were so egregious that it could be said that the Justice Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting them ( see People v. Jenkins, 21 Misc.3d 134[A], 2008 N.Y. Slip Op 52196[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008], citing People v. Weaver, 302 A.D.2d 872, 873 [2003] ). We further find that defendant's contention that the Justice Court improperly deprived him of his due process right to interpose a motion to dismiss is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit.

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed. However, we note that on several occasions the Justice Court directed defendant to proceed with his case, rather than explicitly ruling on an objection made by defendant. We remind the Justice Court of its obligation to provide a ruling on each objection.

MOLIA, J.P., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.