People v. McCormick
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Duncan (N.Y. 1963)
- People v. Attiya (New York Supreme Court 1985)
- People v. Worrell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- People v. Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1974)
- People v. Israel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People v. Saporita (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People v. Perez (New York Supreme Court 1985)
- People v. Alizadeh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Interstate Cigar Co. v. I.B.I. Security Service, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1980)
- People v. Napoletano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1977)
- People v. Fitzpatrick (N.Y. 1976)
- People v. Watson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- People v. Perez (N.Y. 1975)
- People v. La Rue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1975)
- People v. Shanis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1973)
- People v. Eanes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1973)
- People v. Bartholomew (New York County Courts 1973)
- People v. Fraiser (New York County Courts 1973)
- People v. McArthur (New York County Courts 1973)
- People v. Guillont (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1972)
- People v. Schwartzman (N.Y. 1969)
- People v. Dennis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1966)
- People v. Freeman (N.Y. 1961)
- People v. Hurst (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- People v. Duncan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
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
While the rule is clear that cross-examination upon collateral matters may not be fobbed off by a negative response (see People v. Sorge, 301 N. Y. 198), that rule does not sanction either “ the calling of other witnesses or * * * the production of extrinsic evidence ” to refute the witness’ answer on such collateral items (p. 201). In the case before us, confronting defendant with a written statement, purportedly made by him, and reading from it considerable inculpatory material tending to refute his earlier denials, not only rendered such denials futile but amounted to the production of extrinsic evidence within the meaning of the rule here involved. In short, the ■ cross-examination complained of exceeded all permissible limits.
The order should be affirmed.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.