PEOPLE v. YOUNG

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ian YOUNG, Appellant.

Decided: June 24, 2002

GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, THOMAS A. ADAMS and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rachel Altstein of counsel), for Appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Debra J. Kondel of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered October 4, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the trial court effectively denied him, inter alia, his constitutional right to present a defense by precluding him from introducing medical records concerning his hernia operation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Celifie, 287 A.D.2d 465, 730 N.Y.S.2d 884;  People v. Wilson, 209 A.D.2d 654, 619 N.Y.S.2d 659;   People v. Jones, 171 A.D.2d 609, 567 N.Y.S.2d 679).   The defendant's contention that the trial court applied the wrong evidentiary standard is also unpreserved for appellate review, as he never objected to the exclusion of the medical records on that ground at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2];  People v. Correa, 265 A.D.2d 488, 696 N.Y.S.2d 705).   In any event, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the medical records because that evidence was completely irrelevant to the defendant's ability to commit the robbery 16 days after his discharge, and would have invited the jury to engage in speculation (see People v. Celifie, supra;  People v. Ortiz, 259 A.D.2d 271, 686 N.Y.S.2d 386;  People v. Beecher, 225 A.D.2d 943, 639 N.Y.S.2d 863;  cf.  People v. Smith, 195 A.D.2d 265, 599 N.Y.S.2d 582).

Copied to clipboard