Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

People v. Zeito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 7, 2003

302 A.D.2d 923; 753 N.Y.S.2d 914; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1032

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Zeito v. Girdich (District Court, W.D. New York 2006)
People v. Baez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
JONES, CHRISTOPHER, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Buckman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Poole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Monroe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Brooks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Maye (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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 from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Egan, J.), entered March 12, 1997, convicting defendant after a jury trial of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*924Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to suppress the statement that he made to the police after receiving Miranda warnings because that statement was tainted by his earlier statement to the police that preceded the Miranda warnings. Defendant failed to raise that contention before the suppression court and thus has failed to preserve it for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court interfered unnecessarily during the questioning of certain witnesses, thereby depriving him of a fair trial. In any event, that contention is without merit. The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court took on “either the function or appearance of an advocate” (People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67; cf. People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519, 523-524). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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