Torts · MBE-tested

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ishmael Callistro, Appellant

259 A.D.2d 625687 N.Y.S.2d 389·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1999·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ishmael Callistro, Appellant. [687 NYS2d 389] [MAJORITY] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 3, 1996, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The trial court’s Sandoval ruling did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The mere fact that a defendant had committed crimes similar to the one charged did not automatically warrant precluding the prosecutor from using evidence of such crimes for impeachment purposes (see, People v Mattiace, supra; People v Pavao, supra; People v McClam, 225 AD2d 799). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. S. Miller, J. P., Florio, Mc-Ginity and Luciano, JJ., concur.