Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

People v. Scarpulla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 7, 1997

238 A.D.2d 359; 656 N.Y.S.2d 55; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3230

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Dahlbender (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Baltimore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Ramos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Hallingquest (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Marquez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Malave (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

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, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered April 28, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*360The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to preclude cross-examination of him with respect to the acts underlying several prior convictions. The court, in limiting inquiry with respect to certain convictions while allowing full inquiry with regard to other convictions, demonstrated sensitivity to the balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes upon his credibility and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459). "That the number of prior convictions ruled admissible was large” does not establish that the court improvidently exercised its discretion since there are no per se rules requiring preclusion because of the number of the prior crimes (see, People v Walker, supra, at 459). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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