Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990

People v. Frazier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 13, 1990

159 A.D.2d 278; 552 N.Y.S.2d 841; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2636

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Hubbard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Mao-Sheng Lin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Watkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Hodge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Hong Ki Lee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Gordillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Nedal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered November 18, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10), and sentencing him as a predicate felon to a term of imprisonment of from 6 to 12 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the interpreter was competent (People v Catron, 143 AD2d 468). There was no showing that any serious error in translation occurred during trial which would warrant a reversal (People v Rolston, 109 AD2d 854, 855).

Defendant raises several arguments with respect to the prosecutor’s summation. He first contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the People’s witnesses. However, the *279statements made were in fair response to arguments raised by the defense in summation (People v Colon, 122 AD2d 151, lv denied 68 NY2d 810). The remaining contentions were not preserved as a matter of law and we, therefore, decline to reach them. Were we to consider them, we would nevertheless affirm, finding them to be without merit and that the summation was in fair response to defense arguments.

Defendant also fails to show that the court abused its discretion in sentencing (People v Junco, 43 AD2d 266, 268, affd 35 NY2d 419, cert denied 421 US 951). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.