Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

People v. Caban

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 26, 1996

224 A.D.2d 705; 638 N.Y.S.2d 966; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1820

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Gousse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Cabrera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Carillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Cham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Farr (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Peterson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Hernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Rosario (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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered May 25, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the prosecutor improperly questioned two witnesses concerning a prior, uncharged crime, the trial court did not act improperly in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial. The decision to grant or deny such a motion is within the trial court’s discretion (see, People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in this regard, and gave a curative instruction which alleviated any prejudice to the defendant arising from the mention of the uncharged criminal act (see, People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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