"{\"id\": \"1193611\", \"name\": \"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Douglas Edwards, Appellant\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"People v. Edwards\", \"decision_date\": \"1994-12-27\", \"docket_number\": \"\", \"first_page\": \"500\", \"last_page\": \"501\", \"citations\": \"210 A.D.2d 500\", \"volume\": \"210\", \"reporter\": \"Appellate Division Reports\", \"court\": \"New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division\", \"jurisdiction\": \"New York\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T20:45:10.038440+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Edwards, Appellant.\", \"head_matter\": \"The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Edwards, Appellant.\\n[620 NYS2d 992]\", \"word_count\": \"260\", \"char_count\": \"1659\", \"text\": \"\\u2014Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered August 13, 1991, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under Indictment No. 4827/90, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) from an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered August 13, 1991, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Chetta, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sen tence of imprisonment upon his previous convictions of attempted robbery in the second degree and attempted assault in the first degree under Indictment No. 1837/89.\\nOrdered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.\\nContrary to the defendant's contention, it was proper for the prosecutor to cross-examine him with respect to omissions in his post-arrest statements to the police. \\\"If defendant testifie[s] and offer[s] an exculpatory explanation not offered previously, his conduct during police questioning [is] admissible on cross-examination to impeach credibility\\\" (People v Aponte, 180 AD2d 910; see, People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, cert denied 449 US 1016; People v Bishop, 206 AD2d 884).\\nThe defendant's sentences were neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).\\nThe defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.\"}"