People v. Bright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bright

256 A.D.2d 50, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13041

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 50 (People v. Bright) 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. Bright, 256 A.D.2d 50, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered November 1, 1995, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the second degree and attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court’s questioning of the [51]*51witnesses and its rendition of a verdict 10 minutes after summations demonstrate that the court engaged in “ ‘premature deliberations’ ” is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Wilson, 243 AD2d 316, 317, lv denied 91 NY2d 1014; People v Lloyd, 210 AD2d 163, lv denied 85 NY2d 864), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court was entitled to analyze the evidence as it unfolded (supra), and that neither the court’s questioning of witnesses nor the fact that the court rendered a verdict shortly after summations establish that it engaged in premature deliberations (see, People v Carter, 63 NY2d 530, 539; People v Jennings, 144 AD2d 696).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered November 1, 1995, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the second degree and attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court’s questioning of the [51]*51witnesses and its rendition of a verdict 10 minutes after summations demonstrate that the court engaged in “ ‘premature deliberations’ ” is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Wilson, 243 AD2d 316, 317, lv denied 91 NY2d 1014; People v Lloyd, 210 AD2d 163, lv denied 85 NY2d 864), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court was entitled to analyze the evidence as it unfolded (supra), and that neither the court’s questioning of witnesses nor the fact that the court rendered a verdict shortly after summations establish that it engaged in premature deliberations (see, People v Carter, 63 NY2d 530, 539; People v Jennings, 144 AD2d 696).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 50, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bright-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack