People v. Montesano, 54 N.Y.2d 736 (1981)
To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection on the record during the trial court proceedings.
Summary
Montesano was convicted of grand larceny and offering a false instrument for filing related to Medicaid fraud. The Appellate Division reversed, citing the erroneous admission of an auditor’s testimony. The Court of Appeals dismissed the People’s appeal because the Appellate Division’s reversal was based on grounds for which no timely objection had been made at trial, thus failing to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that its dismissal did not endorse the Appellate Division’s legal rulings.
Facts
The defendant was indicted for grand larceny and multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing. The prosecution alleged that the defendant stole over $250 by filing false Medicaid claim forms that overstated patient visits. The defendant was convicted after a jury trial.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Montesano. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and granted a new trial, holding that the testimony of an auditor from the Medicaid Fraud Unit was erroneously admitted. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division’s reversal was based solely on questions of law for which proper objections were made at trial, thereby establishing the jurisdictional predicate for an appeal to the Court of Appeals under CPL 450.90(2).
Holding
No, because the Appellate Division’s reversal was based, in part, on grounds for which timely objections were not made at trial. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of a jurisdictional predicate.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the Appellate Division’s reversal was based on three grounds: (1) the subject matter of the auditor’s testimony did not require expertise; (2) the testimony impermissibly bolstered the credibility of other witnesses; and (3) the testimony invaded the province of the jury. However, the record showed that the defense only objected to the auditor’s testimony at trial on the grounds that it was an “improper intrusion of the province of this jury.” Because objections on the first two grounds were not timely raised at trial, the Appellate Division’s decision was not based solely on questions of law properly preserved. The Court of Appeals emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to appeals where the reversal below is based on the law alone or on the law and such facts that would not have led to the reversal absent the legal error. Because the Appellate Division relied, in part, on unpreserved errors, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The court cited People v. Dercole, 52 N.Y.2d 956, stating that because the court had not reached the merits, its disposition did not endorse the rulings in the opinion below.