New York Court of Appeals, 1998

People v. Cooper

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 1998

92 N.Y.2d 968; 683 N.Y.S.2d 757; 706 N.E.2d 745; 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 4031

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Marable (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Rojas (N.Y. 2001)
Owens v. Ascencio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
SNYDER, JEREMY, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Snyder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Snyder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Seabrooks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Gross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Ramirez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Baez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Delacruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Gonzalez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Varlack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Sharpe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant opened the door to cross-examination regarding his motivation for prior guilty pleas and was subject to impeachment by the People’s use of the otherwise precluded evidence (People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646). We note that in this case — unlike in People v Moore (92 NY2d 823) where the defendant’s statements were vague and equivocal — defendant’s testimony was meant to elicit an incorrect jury inference that he had pleaded guilty and served prison terms in prior cases, but that he would not plead guilty in this case because he was in fact innocent.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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