People v. Brantley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brantley

249 A.D.2d 319, 670 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3632

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 319 (People v. Brantley) 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. Brantley, 249 A.D.2d 319, 670 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered December 4, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[320]*320Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment upon the evidence (see, People v Brisbane, 244 AD2d 498; People v Robbins, 239 AD2d 526) and was, in part, a response to defense counsel’s own arguments during summation (see, People v Brisbane, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 (D’Emic, J.), rendered December 4, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[320]*320Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment upon the evidence (see, People v Brisbane, 244 AD2d 498; People v Robbins, 239 AD2d 526) and was, in part, a response to defense counsel’s own arguments during summation (see, People v Brisbane, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 319, 670 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brantley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack