Case ID: ny-2d_61/html/0708-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Morello, Appellant.
    Argued December 13, 1983;
    decided January 10, 1984
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Irving Anolik for appellant.
    
      Mario Merola, District Attorney (Peter D. Coddington and Steven R. Kartagener of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the Appellate Division’s memorandum (92 AD2d 458). We add only that defendant’s argument that the mention of the name “Mongo” in testimony by one of the People’s witnesses required a mistrial is unpersuasive. There was no evidence that “Mongo” had particular reference to defendant or particular meaning to the jurors, and they were in any event instructed to disregard the testimony mentioning “Mongo”. We note that defendant never requested that the jurors be questioned to determine if prejudice resulted from the stricken testimony. Moreover, in view of defendant’s admission and the circumstantial evidence supporting his conviction, any error resulting from mention of “Mongo” would have been harmless.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.