Court Opinion

ID: 9837814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:54:24.686048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:29.935946
License: Public Domain

*146Rivera, J.
(concurring). For the reasons stated by the majority, I agree that the facts of this case make it different from People v Savage (50 NY2d 673 [1980]) (majority op at 145). Unlike the majority, I find those differences cannot be analytically overcome and believe that it was error to allow the People to impeach the defendant’s trial testimony with his selective silence during cross-examination. Omissions from a non-exculpatory, spontaneous, pre-Miranda statement to police at the scene of the arrest do not rise to the “limited and unusual circumstances” contemplated in People v Williams (25 NY3d 185, 193 [2015]). However, because the error was harmless, and because the other claims are without merit, the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Judges Pigott, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur; Judge Rivera concurs in result in a separate concurring opinion.
Order affirmed.