PEOPLE v. CONNOLLY

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William CONNOLLY, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 31, 1999

Present:  DENMAN, P.J., GREEN, PINE, HAYES and HURLBUTT, JJ. Raymond Charles Herman III, Erie County District Attorney's Office, Buffalo, for plaintiff-respondent. John R. Nuchereno, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant.

 We reject defendant's contentions that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Defendant's contention that the People failed to disclose a statement of a witness until the eve of trial is not preserved for our review because the only objection to that statement was made in a postverdict motion (see, People v. Padro, 75 N.Y.2d 820, 552 N.Y.S.2d 555, 551 N.E.2d 1233, rearg. denied 75 N.Y.2d 1005, 557 N.Y.S.2d 312, 556 N.E.2d 1119, rearg. dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 989, 599 N.Y.S.2d 797, 616 N.E.2d 152).   Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the People to cross-examine defendant with respect to his application to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles for a Purple Heart license plate.   The questioning was relevant and material to defendant's credibility, veracity, and honesty (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 461-462, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472).   We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: