People v. Alnutt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alnutt

172 A.D.2d 1061, 569 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6342

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1061 (People v. Alnutt) 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. Alnutt, 172 A.D.2d 1061, 569 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues on appeal that the Trial Judge committed reversible error in refusing to recuse himself on the ground that he was a former District Attorney who had previously prosecuted defendant on a felony charge of which defendant had been acquitted. In the absence of violation of Judiciary Law § 14 or a showing that the court’s alleged bias affected the result in this jury trial, the issue of recusal was a matter left to the Trial Judge’s own conscience (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406; People v Bartolomeo, 126 AD2d 375, 391, lv denied 70 NY2d 702; see also, People v Gallagher, 158 AD2d 469, lv denied 76 NY2d 735).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oswego County Court, Auser, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues on appeal that the Trial Judge committed reversible error in refusing to recuse himself on the ground that he was a former District Attorney who had previously prosecuted defendant on a felony charge of which defendant had been acquitted. In the absence of violation of Judiciary Law § 14 or a showing that the court’s alleged bias affected the result in this jury trial, the issue of recusal was a matter left to the Trial Judge’s own conscience (see, People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 406; People v Bartolomeo, 126 AD2d 375, 391, lv denied 70 NY2d 702; see also, People v Gallagher, 158 AD2d 469, lv denied 76 NY2d 735).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oswego County Court, Auser, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1061, 569 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alnutt-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack