New York Court of Appeals, 2003

People v. Everson

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 23, 2003 · Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read Concur

799 N.E.2d 613; 100 N.Y.2d 609; 767 N.Y.S.2d 389; 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 2545 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Trump (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Lloyd v. Morton (District Court, E.D. New York 2023)
People v. Malave (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Malave (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
CAPERS, DEVON, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Capers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Lazaro (New York Supreme Court 2012)
People v. Sudol (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Encarnacion (New York Supreme Court 2010)
People v. Heil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Shire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Ketteles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Hamm (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Stanton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Resek (N.Y. 2004)
People v. Samuels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Broughton (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2004)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division reversing the order of the Supreme Court and denying defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion, and reinstating the verdict convicting him of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), should be affirmed. A party’s failure to specify the basis for its general objection renders its argument unpreserved for this Court’s review (see People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). At trial, defense counsel made only a general objection to a portion of one of the expert’s statements. Supreme Court sustained it and gave a limiting instruction. Defense counsel neither objected to the adequacy or accuracy of the limiting instruction nor specifically objected upon hearsay grounds to the expert’s further testimony. Therefore, defendant’s challenge to the expert’s testimony was not preserved. The Appellate Division properly concluded that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion on a ground that would not have required “a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.”

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read 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.