People v Rivers
2011 NY Slip Op 05106 [85 AD3d 826]
June 7, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 10, 2011


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

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Blumenfeld, J.), rendered March 9, 2009, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree,criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, resisting arrest, reckless driving,possession of burglar's tools, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventhdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the trial court's interference during his cross-examination isunpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886, 888 [1982]; People v Bembury, 14 AD3d 575,576 [2005]). "In any event, while the court, at times, took an [active] role in questioning thedefendant, its conduct did not rise to such an extent as to deny the defendant a fair and impartialtrial" (People v Bembury, 14 AD3d at 576 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Perez, 30 AD3d 542[2006]; People v Sevencan, 258 AD2d 485 [1999]). Any potential prejudice to thedefendant was minimized by the trial court's instructions advising the jury that the trial court hadno opinion concerning the case (seePeople v Charles-Pierre, 31 AD3d 659, 660 [2006]; People v Bembury, 14AD3d at 576).

Further, any error in permitting the prosecutor, over objection, to exceed the scope of the trialcourt's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) washarmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significantprobability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 424-425 [2006]; People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]), particularly in light of the trial court's curativeinstructions (see People v Bianchi,34 AD3d 690 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Belen, Sgroi and Miller, 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.