People v. Arrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arrington

14 A.D.3d 442, 787 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 442 (People v. Arrington) 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. Arrington, 14 A.D.3d 442, 787 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered November 6, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

During jury selection, after conducting a suitable inquiry into a sworn juror’s availability, the court properly exercised its discretion in discharging the juror on the ground that he was unavailable or unable to continue to serve due to illness (see CPL 270.15 [3]; People v Page, 72 NY2d 69 [1988]). The duration of the juror’s expected absence was uncertain (see People v Graves, 243 AD2d 275 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]) and the court properly took into account the inconvenience that an indefinite delay would cause to jurors and witnesses (see People v Robustelli, 189 AD2d 668 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 975 [1993]). We also note that the court granted defendant an additional peremptory challenge.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson,. JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered November 6, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

During jury selection, after conducting a suitable inquiry into a sworn juror’s availability, the court properly exercised its discretion in discharging the juror on the ground that he was unavailable or unable to continue to serve due to illness (see CPL 270.15 [3]; People v Page, 72 NY2d 69 [1988]). The duration of the juror’s expected absence was uncertain (see People v Graves, 243 AD2d 275 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 834 [1997]) and the court properly took into account the inconvenience that an indefinite delay would cause to jurors and witnesses (see People v Robustelli, 189 AD2d 668 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 975 [1993]). We also note that the court granted defendant an additional peremptory challenge.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson,. JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 442, 787 N.Y.S.2d 877, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arrington-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack