People v Benloss
2009 NY Slip Op 01656 [60 AD3d 686]
March 3, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009


60—The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Gary Benloss, Appellant.

[*1]Stanley Neustadter, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

[*2]Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y.(Leonard Joblove, Karol B. Mangum, and Solomon Neubort of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.),rendered November 20, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).

The prosecutor acted improperly in asking a witness if anyone else had been injured in theincident, resulting in testimony that a young girl also was shot. Such testimony was immaterialto the charges against the defendant, was elicited in violation of the prosecutor's obligationsunder People v Ventimiglia (52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]), and was prejudicial to thedefense. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying thedefendant's request for a mistrial. The prejudice that resulted from the improper testimony wasalleviated by the trial court's actions in immediately striking the testimony from the record andproviding a curative instruction to the jury (see People v Whitely, 41 AD3d 622, 623 [2007]; People v Oliver, 19 AD3d 512[2005]; People v Kirk, 12 AD3d619 [2004]), which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Berg, 59NY2d 294, 299-300 [1983]; People vHardy, 22 AD3d 679, 680 [2005]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.