People v. Bedford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bedford

248 A.D.2d 245, 671 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2561

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 245 (People v. Bedford) 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. Bedford, 248 A.D.2d 245, 671 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3x/2 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Slaughter, 37 NY2d 596; People v Ramos, 178 AD2d 349, Iv denied 79 NY2d 922). The victim’s larcenous conduct discovered after trial was merely impeaching evidence, and it would not have created a probability of changing the outcome of the case (CPL 330.30 [3]).

When viewed in context of the evidence and the entire charge, the court’s instruction on credibility was adequate. In any event, were we to find the instruction to be erroneous, we would find it to be harmless (see, People v Hurel, 60 AD2d 537, Iv denied 43 NY2d 928).

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3x/2 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Slaughter, 37 NY2d 596; People v Ramos, 178 AD2d 349, Iv denied 79 NY2d 922). The victim’s larcenous conduct discovered after trial was merely impeaching evidence, and it would not have created a probability of changing the outcome of the case (CPL 330.30 [3]).

When viewed in context of the evidence and the entire charge, the court’s instruction on credibility was adequate. In any event, were we to find the instruction to be erroneous, we would find it to be harmless (see, People v Hurel, 60 AD2d 537, Iv denied 43 NY2d 928).

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 245, 671 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bedford-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack