People v. Ahmedoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ahmedoff

131 A.D.2d 683, 516 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48142

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 683 (People v. Ahmedoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ahmedoff, 131 A.D.2d 683, 516 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered May 29, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of a repugnant verdict has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d [684]*684985; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, rearg denied 57 NY2d 674). In any event, were we to consider this claim in the interest of justice we would find it to be without merit. An examination of the instructions given to the jury in this case shows that the verdict was not repugnant (see, People v Goodfriend, 64 NY2d 695, 699; People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 4, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered May 29, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of a repugnant verdict has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d [684]*684985; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, rearg denied 57 NY2d 674). In any event, were we to consider this claim in the interest of justice we would find it to be without merit. An examination of the instructions given to the jury in this case shows that the verdict was not repugnant (see, People v Goodfriend, 64 NY2d 695, 699; People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 4, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 683, 516 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ahmedoff-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack