Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

People v. Nathan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 20, 1996

224 A.D.2d 640; 639 N.Y.S.2d 412; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1419

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Nathan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
People v. Nathan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Henry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Graff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Greene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Bellamy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. George (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Hladky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belli, J.), rendered January 4, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts; one count of felony murder and one count of intentional murder) and burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 25 years to life imprisonment for the intentional and felony murder convictions and concurrent indeterminate terms of 12V2 to 25 years imprisonment for the burglary convictions, to run consecutive to the murder convictions.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the terms of imprisonment imposed for the convictions of burglary in the first degree shall run concurrent with the term of imprisonment imposed for the conviction of felony murder; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that his conviction warrants reversal as a result of certain comments made by the *641prosecutor in his opening statement. While the complained-of comments were improper, they did not warrant reversal in light of the court’s prompt curative instructions to the jury (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294; People v Hopkins, 58 NY2d 1079; People v Tayeh, 96 AD2d 1045) and the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; cf., People v Kennedy, 216 AD2d 491).

We also find unavailing the defendant’s assertion that the sentences imposed for the two burglary convictions should run concurrent with the sentences imposed for the intentional murder conviction inasmuch as the intentional murder was separate and distinct from the burglary (see, People v Mebert, 194 AD2d 809; People v Whiting, 182 AD2d 732; Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). As conceded by the People, however, the sentences imposed for the burglary convictions should run concurrent with the sentence imposed for the felony murder conviction since the burglary constituted a "material element” of the underlying felony murder offense (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v German, 139 AD2d 529). Accordingly, the sentence is modified to that extent. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.