Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

People v. Burroughs

People v. Burroughs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 7, 2001
280 A.D.2d 965; 721 N.Y.S.2d 213; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456
People v. Burroughs

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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 unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of multiple counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1], [3]). The charges arose from defendant’s fraudulent use of a fictitious name, date of birth and social security number to obtain a New York State learner’s permit, a driver’s license, and a certificate of title from the Department of Motor Vehicles and a policy of automobile insurance from an insurance company. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during summation. We agree with defendant that the prosecutor’s comments that defendant “needs a strong message” were improper (see, People v Dworakowski, 208 AD2d 1129, 1130, lv denied 84 NY2d 1031; People v Hanright, 187 AD2d 1021, lv denied 81 NY2d 840). Although Supreme Court should have sustained the objection to those comments and issued prompt curative instructions (cf., People v Dworakowski, supra, at 1130), we nevertheless conclude that those comments were not so egregious that they denied defendant a fair trial (see, People v Hanright, supra). Defendant’s remaining challenges to the propriety of the prosecutor’s remarks are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, those challenges are without merit because the remarks were within the bounds of fair argument (see, People v Spencer, 272 AD2d 682, 685, lv denied 95 NY2d 858). The *966sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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