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
- 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
- Stanziano v. StanzianoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997