People v. Brown
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- LEGGETT, MICHAEL, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Leggett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Leggett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Serrano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People v. Butler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- KEELS, TIMOTHY L., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Keels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- People v. Keels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- GOUPIL, MARK, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Goupil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Goupil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- SANTIAGO, JESSICA L., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- GASTON, VICTOR, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Gaston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Gaston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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 judg
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation (see People v Mc-Eathron, 86 AD3d 915, 916 [2011]; People v Lyon, 77 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 954 [2010]). Specifically, defendant either failed to object to the alleged instances of misconduct (see People v Paul, 78 AD3d 1684, 1684-1685 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 834 [2011]), or his objections thereto “were merely general objections without a specified basis” (People v Beggs, 19 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 803 [2005]; see People v Parks, 66 AD3d 1429, 1430 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 804 [2010]; see generally People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. The majority of the comments in question were within “ ‘the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible’ ” during summations (People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1059, 1061 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 854 [2007], quoting People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]), and they were “either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence” (McEathron, 86 AD3d at 916 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s comments were beyond those bounds, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial” (id.). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.