People v. Brockington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brockington

40 A.D.3d 871, 834 N.Y.S.2d 480

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

DecidedMay 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 871 (People v. Brockington) 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. Brockington, 40 A.D.3d 871, 834 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered May 10, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial because the prosecutor and the court failed to timely inform him that the complaining witness had died. The defendant’s argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we find that a reversal of the conviction is not warranted (see People v Rice, 69 NY2d 781 [1987]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241 [1975]). Mastro, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Dickerson, 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, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered May 10, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial because the prosecutor and the court failed to timely inform him that the complaining witness had died. The defendant’s argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we find that a reversal of the conviction is not warranted (see People v Rice, 69 NY2d 781 [1987]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241 [1975]). Mastro, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 871, 834 N.Y.S.2d 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brockington-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack