People v Colon
2026 NY Slip Op 02281
April 15, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Joseph Colon, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 15, 2026
2023-10448, (Ind. No. 73032/21)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Barry E. Warhit
James P. McCormack, JJ.
Talkin, Muccigrosso & Roberts, LLP, New York, NY (Sanford N. Talkin of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Katherine A. Walecka of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Susan Quirk, J.), rendered October 25, 2023, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree and related crimes for the nonfatal shooting of the complainant. At trial, in addition to testimonial evidence, the People submitted video evidence that clearly depicted the shooting, as well as the defendant's movements before and after the shooting. The defendant raised a justification defense, which was rejected by the jury.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the complainant (see People v Rouse, 34 NY3d 269, 275-276; People v Smith, 27 NY3d 652, 659-662) and in allowing the prosecutor to ask questions of the defendant's character witnesses that improperly assumed the defendant's guilt of the crimes for which he was on trial (see People v Lowery, 214 AD2d 684, 685; People v Gandy, 152 AD2d 909; People v Pryor, 70 AD2d 805, 806). Any error with regard to these determinations did not deprive the defendant of his fundamental right to a fair trial, and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, since the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237-238).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).
CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court