Legal Opinion

People v. Pavel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 13, 1990PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of the issues raised by defendant requires reversal of his conviction or modification of his sentences. The sentences were not harsh and excessive. The court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the infant witness to be sworn, inasmuch as the court’s inquiry of the witness indicated that he understood the nature of an oath (see, CPL 60.20 [2]). The court did not excessively interject

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kenneth G. Pavel v. Melvin L. Hollins, Superintendent, Oneida Correctional Facility Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney General of New York StateCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
  2. Stanziano v. StanzianoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997