People v. Beauford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beauford

215 A.D.2d 398, 625 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4717

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Beauford) 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. Beauford, 215 A.D.2d 398, 625 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered March 8, 1993, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was denied a public trial because certain members of his family were excluded from the courtroom was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the trial court had announced the exclusion in order to preserve fairness to the defendant and decorum in the courtroom because his family had disrupted the trial the day before the exclusion (see, People v Colon, 71 NY2d 410; People v Cosentino, 198 AD2d 294, 295).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are either without merit or do not warrant reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, 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 (Pincus, J.), rendered March 8, 1993, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was denied a public trial because certain members of his family were excluded from the courtroom was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the trial court had announced the exclusion in order to preserve fairness to the defendant and decorum in the courtroom because his family had disrupted the trial the day before the exclusion (see, People v Colon, 71 NY2d 410; People v Cosentino, 198 AD2d 294, 295).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are either without merit or do not warrant reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 398, 625 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beauford-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack