You are here: / / Court Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His...
,

Court Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His Prior Possession of Guns Under Sandoval—Possession of Guns Has No Bearing on Credibility

Although the error was deemed harmless, the Second Department noted that defendant’s prior conduct of possessing guns should not have been ruled a topic of proper cross-examination of the defendant. Gun possession has no relationship to credibility, which is the sole concern under Sandoval:

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining, after a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), that the People could inquire about the defendant’s prior conduct of possessing guns. Whereas “[c]ommission of perjury or other crimes or acts of individual dishonesty, or untrustworthiness . . . will usually have a very material relevance, whenever committed” (id. at 377), the fact that the defendant had possessed guns on a prior occasion had little bearing on his credibility … . People v Anderson, 2015 NY Slip Op 06355, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTRUMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO PROBATE AS A LOST WILL (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL TO DENY A PETITION TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY.
Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CARDBOARD ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED FOR OIL SPILL ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“For Cause” Challenges to Three Jurors Who Said Only They Would... Marijuana Convictions, Standing Alone, Are Not a Sufficient Basis for Assessment...