People v. Ciprian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ciprian

309 A.D.2d 874, 766 N.Y.S.2d 43

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 874 (People v. Ciprian) 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. Ciprian, 309 A.D.2d 874, 766 N.Y.S.2d 43 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered May 10, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, the defendant’s contention that the court improperly directed a juror who was suffering from a migraine headache to continue deliberating despite her discomfort and that the juror’s subsequent assurance that she would “be okay” was insufficient to allow her to continue deliberating, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the Supreme Court properly questioned her pursuant to CPL 270.35 (2), and providently exercised its significant discretion in determining that the juror was able and willing to continue (see People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507 [2000]; People v Page, 72 NY2d 69 [1988]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Mastro, 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 (Demarest, J.), rendered May 10, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Initially, the defendant’s contention that the court improperly directed a juror who was suffering from a migraine headache to continue deliberating despite her discomfort and that the juror’s subsequent assurance that she would “be okay” was insufficient to allow her to continue deliberating, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the Supreme Court properly questioned her pursuant to CPL 270.35 (2), and providently exercised its significant discretion in determining that the juror was able and willing to continue (see People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507 [2000]; People v Page, 72 NY2d 69 [1988]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 874, 766 N.Y.S.2d 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ciprian-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack