People v. Armstrong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Armstrong

237 A.D.2d 452, 655 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2507

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 452 (People v. Armstrong) 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. Armstrong, 237 A.D.2d 452, 655 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), dated November 9, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) to set aside a jury verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and granted a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), based solely on the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Consequently, any other application for relief on any other basis is not properly before this Court (see, CPL 470.15 [1]). Further, since the facts which formed the basis of the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not appear in the trial record, the trial court erred in granting relief on that basis in the absence of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Grossfeld, 216 AD2d 319; People v Leka, 209 AD2d 723). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), dated November 9, 1995, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) to set aside a jury verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and granted a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), based solely on the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel. Consequently, any other application for relief on any other basis is not properly before this Court (see, CPL 470.15 [1]). Further, since the facts which formed the basis of the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not appear in the trial record, the trial court erred in granting relief on that basis in the absence of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, People v Grossfeld, 216 AD2d 319; People v Leka, 209 AD2d 723). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 452, 655 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-armstrong-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack