People v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alexander

282 A.D.2d 468, 722 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3251

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 2, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered May 3, 1999, convicting him of assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[469] The defendant failed to object to the procedure used by the Supreme Court to dismiss a sworn juror and therefore that issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see, also, People v Starks, 248 AD2d 1003; People v Schenck, 209 AD2d 453; People v Ricciardi, 199 AD2d 432). The defendant’s failure to object deprived this Court of a record on which we could exercise intelligent judicial review of his contentions (see, People v Camacho, 90 NY2d 558; People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772; People v Thompson, 262 AD2d 666). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered May 3, 1999, convicting him of assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[469] The defendant failed to object to the procedure used by the Supreme Court to dismiss a sworn juror and therefore that issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see, also, People v Starks, 248 AD2d 1003; People v Schenck, 209 AD2d 453; People v Ricciardi, 199 AD2d 432). The defendant’s failure to object deprived this Court of a record on which we could exercise intelligent judicial review of his contentions (see, People v Camacho, 90 NY2d 558; People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772; People v Thompson, 262 AD2d 666). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [6]). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Alexander, 282 A.D.2d 468, 722 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

282 A.D.2d 468 (People v. Alexander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related