People v. Cantor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cantor

248 A.D.2d 395, 669 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered March 18, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the trial court improperly dismissed a venireperson who was peremptorily challenged by the People in violation of Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79). However, the court properly found that the race-neutral reason proffered for the challenge was not pretextual (see, People v McArthur, 178 AD2d 612). To the extent that the defendant’s argument rests on a factual challenge as to what was said by the subject venireperson during questioning, the defendant failed to establish a “factual record sufficient to permit appellate review” (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 774; see also, People v Cruz, 200 AD2d 581; People v Irizarry, 165 AD2d 715; People v Campanella, 176 AD2d 813).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, 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 (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered March 18, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the trial court improperly dismissed a venireperson who was peremptorily challenged by the People in violation of Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79). However, the court properly found that the race-neutral reason proffered for the challenge was not pretextual (see, People v McArthur, 178 AD2d 612). To the extent that the defendant’s argument rests on a factual challenge as to what was said by the subject venireperson during questioning, the defendant failed to establish a “factual record sufficient to permit appellate review” (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 774; see also, People v Cruz, 200 AD2d 581; People v Irizarry, 165 AD2d 715; People v Campanella, 176 AD2d 813).

Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Cantor, 248 A.D.2d 395, 669 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

248 A.D.2d 395 (People v. Cantor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related