Case Title: The People v. Shannon M. Kolupa

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2009-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 193  SSM 25
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Shannon M. Kolupa,
            Appellant.
Submitted by Esther Cohen Lee, for appellant.
Submitted by Steven G. Cox, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the
People introduced insufficient evidence to corroborate the child
victim's testimony.  At the close of the People's case, the trial
court denied defendant's motion to dismiss and defendant
- 2 -
SSM No. 25
- 2 -
proceeded to present his own evidence.  He did not thereafter
renew the motion to dismiss at the close of his proof or
specifically argue that there was not sufficient corroboration of
the victim's statements.  As a result, this issue is not
reviewable (see e.g. People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006];
People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004]; People v Hines, 97 NY2d
56, 61-62 [2001]).  Defendant's remaining contention is without
merit.
- 1 -
People v Kolupa 
No. SSM 25 
SMITH, J. (concurring):
Today's decision correctly applies People v Hines (97
NY2d 56, 61-62 [2001]).  I have expressed my unhappiness with
Hines before (People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004] [R. S.
Smith, J. concurring]), but this case, in which the Appellate
Division did not mention preservation, defendant does not argue
- 2 -
SSM No. 25
- 2 -
the issue, and the Appellate Division's decision on the merits
seems clearly correct, is not the right one for further
examination of the Hines rule.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur, Judge
Smith in a separate concurring opinion.
Decided September 22, 2009