PEOPLE v. CALLISTRO (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ishmael CALLISTRO, appellant.

Decided: March 15, 1999

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, LEO F. McGINITY and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.

Sally Wasserman, New York, N.Y., for appellant. William L. Murphy, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Karen F. McGee and Jillian S. Spitzer of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 3, 1996, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Mattiace, 77 N.Y.2d 269, 275-276, 567 N.Y.S.2d 384, 568 N.E.2d 1189; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216). The mere fact that a defendant had committed crimes similar to the one charged did not automatically warrant precluding the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes (see, People v. Mattiace, supra; People v. Pavao, supra; People v. McClam, 225 A.D.2d 799, 639 N.Y.S.2d 854).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network