People v. Belnavis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Belnavis

76 A.D.2d 842, 428 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11892

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

DecidedJune 2, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 842 (People v. Belnavis) 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. Belnavis, 76 A.D.2d 842, 428 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 12, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts) and robbery in the second degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Since CPL 710.40 (subd 3) is not qualified by CPL 320.20 (subd 4), the trial court’s procedure of combining the Wade hearing and the nonjury trial was violative of the former provision. However, since defendant did not object to the procedure followed and has not demonstrated any actual prejudice suffered by him as a result thereof, the violation of CPL 710.40 (subd 3) does not require reversal. (Cf. People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168; People v Lawrence, 39 NY2d 956.) In this regard, our review of the record reveals no reason to disturb Criminal Term’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the identification testimony. We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 12, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts) and robbery in the second degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Since CPL 710.40 (subd 3) is not qualified by CPL 320.20 (subd 4), the trial court’s procedure of combining the Wade hearing and the nonjury trial was violative of the former provision. However, since defendant did not object to the procedure followed and has not demonstrated any actual prejudice suffered by him as a result thereof, the violation of CPL 710.40 (subd 3) does not require reversal. (Cf. People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168; People v Lawrence, 39 NY2d 956.) In this regard, our review of the record reveals no reason to disturb Criminal Term’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress the identification testimony. We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 842, 428 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-belnavis-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack