People v Randolph (Eugene)

[*1] People v Randolph (Eugene) 2014 NY Slip Op 50261(U) Decided on February 27, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 27, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ
12-178.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Eugene Randolph, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered October 27, 2011, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Marc J. Whiten, J.), rendered October 27, 2011, affirmed.

The court's Sandoval ruling, which would have allowed the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant for impeachment purposes about the facts underlying only one of defendant's numerous prior convictions, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Smith, 18 NY3d 588, 593-594 [2012]; People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). Although the prior conviction about which inquiry was permitted, a 1995 prosecution involving burglary charges, had similarities to the case at bar, the prior theft-related offense was particularly relevant to defendant's veracity (see People v Peterson, 216 AD2d 139, 139 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 845 [1995]). Defendant's assertion that the 1995 burglary conviction (for which he was incarcerated from 1996 to 2010) was too remote in time is unpersuasive, "since incarceration may toll periods of time when assessing remoteness" (People v Rosa, 47 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 816 [2008]; see People v Mack, 6 AD3d 551, 551 [2004]; lv denied 3 NY3d 660 [2004]). In any event, any error was harmless in the context of this bench trial and given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: February 27, 2014