People v Coppeta

Annotate this Case
People v Coppeta 2015 NY Slip Op 01012 Decided on February 6, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 6, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND WHALEN, JJ.
54 KA 10-01488

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

CHRISTINE L. COPPETA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Valentino, J.), rendered June 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (two counts).



TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35), defendant's sole contention is that Supreme Court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial on the ground that the testimony of a witness that a bracelet was missing from the witness's residence was Molineux evidence and was improperly admitted because she did not receive the requisite notice of the testimony. We conclude that defendant's contention is without merit because the testimony did not implicate defendant in the commission of any uncharged crime and thus it did not constitute Molineux evidence (see People v Hillard, 79 AD3d 1757, 1758, lv denied 17 NY3d 796; see generally People v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 464-465).

Entered: February 6, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.