PEOPLE, res, v. TAYE ELLEBY, def-ap

2879. PEOPLE, res, v. TAYE ELLEBY, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Samuel J. Mendez of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nuez, J .), rendered February 5, 2014, as amended March 14, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sex trafficking and two counts each of promoting prostitution in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 10 2/3 to 32 years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

2879. PEOPLE, res, v. TAYE ELLEBY, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Samuel J. Mendez of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nuez, J .), rendered February 5, 2014, as amended March 14, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sex trafficking and two counts each of promoting prostitution in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 10 2/3 to 32 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his present challenges to the court’s rulings permitting the People to examine one of the victims by leading questions as a hostile witness and impeach her with her grand jury testimony and other prior statements pursuant to CPL 60.35(1), and to the absence of a limiting instruction as to the prior statements. Although defendant objected to the admission of a transcript of the parts of the witness’s grand jury testimony used during her trial testimony on the ground that this violated his right of confrontation under Crawford v. Washington (541 US 36 [2004]), his federal Confrontation Clause claim is unavailing because he had an opportunity tocross-examine the witness at trial. Defendant did not preserve his present claim that the evidence at issue violated his right of confrontation under the New York Constitution, which he claims provides broader protection (see People v. DiTommaso, 127 AD3d 11, 20 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1162 [2015]). We decline to review these contentions in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]), which included, among other things, the testimony of another victim, and a wealth of bank, phone and Internet records that completely refuted defendant’s testimony, in which he disclaimed any involvement in prostitution.

PEOPLE, res, v. TAYE ELLEBY, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal