From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ayala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2001
280 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued January 12, 2001.

February 13, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered December 22, 1998, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (16 counts), sodomy in the second degree (15 counts), and sodomy in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Edward M. Kratt, New York, N.Y. (John R. Lewis on the brief), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Adam S. Charnoff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improperly limit the defense counsel' s cross-examination of the complainant. The law is well settled that the nature and extent of cross-examination are matters within the court's sound discretion (see, People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 56; People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258; People v. McGriff, 201 A.D.2d 672; People v. Boyajian, 148 A.D.2d 740, 741).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Ayala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 13, 2001
280 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Ayala

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY AYALA, APPELLANT. (IND. NO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 13, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 407

Citing Cases

People v. Rodriguez

The law is well settled that the nature and extent of cross examination are matters within the trial court's…

People v. Perez

The trial court acted within its broad discretion in limiting the defense counsel's questioning of…