People v. Brady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brady

724 N.E.2d 382, 259 A.D.2d 1019, 689 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3409

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 724 N.E.2d 382 (People v. Brady) 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. Brady, 724 N.E.2d 382, 259 A.D.2d 1019, 689 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s contention that [1020]*1020County Court’s instructions on the element of operation were erroneous has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Hurlbutt, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c]). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s contention that [1020]*1020County Court’s instructions on the element of operation were erroneous has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Hurlbutt, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 N.E.2d 382, 259 A.D.2d 1019, 689 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brady-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack