Case ID: ad2d_199/html/0097-02.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 Jose Nieves, Appellant.
    [605 NYS2d 60]
   Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Solomon Katz, J., at hearing; Edward M. Davidowitz, J., at trial), rendered December 2, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, and also convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 3Vz to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by belatedly ruling, after-the-fact, that defendant’s statement was admissible for impeachment purposes, is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit. There was no evidence or claim that the statement was coerced, and thus inadmissible for impeachment purposes (Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 396-402). Nor has defendant claimed that he was prejudiced in any way by the alleged untimeliness of the trial court’s ruling.

When defendant elicited the fact of a photo identification the People were properly permitted to elicit the photo identification procedures to correct the jury’s potential misimpression that the police had unfairly shown the victim a single photo (People v Brown, 62 AD2d 715, 723-724, affd 48 NY2d 921).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.