People v. Coad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coad

149 A.D.2d 429, 542 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453

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

DecidedApril 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A.D.2d 429 (People v. Coad) 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. Coad, 149 A.D.2d 429, 542 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered October 2, 1986, as convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

By failing to specifically object during the trial, the defendant did not preserve for appellate review as a matter of law his challenges to the trial court’s charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, review of these claims as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice is not warranted under the circumstances. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered October 2, 1986, as convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

By failing to specifically object during the trial, the defendant did not preserve for appellate review as a matter of law his challenges to the trial court’s charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, review of these claims as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice is not warranted under the circumstances. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 429, 542 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coad-nyappdiv-1989.