People v. Craig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Craig

15 A.D.3d 919, 788 N.Y.S.2d 778, 2005 NY Slip Op 806, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 992

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 919 (People v. Craig) 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. Craig, 15 A.D.3d 919, 788 N.Y.S.2d 778, 2005 NY Slip Op 806, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered July 24, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his challenges to County Court’s evidentiary rulings (see People v Cunningham, 12 AD3d 1131, 1132-1133 [2004]), including his [920]*920contentions that he was denied his right of confrontation by the admission of testimony suggesting that he had been implicated by his codefendant (see People v Walker, 71 NY2d 1018, 1019-1020 [1988], rearg denied 72 NY2d 953 [1988]; People v Carter, 1 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 738 [2004]) and by the court’s restriction of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness (see People v Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501, 501-502 [1988]). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, we reject the contentions of defendant that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]) and he was denied his right to testify (see People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]). Present — Green, J.P, Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered July 24, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his challenges to County Court’s evidentiary rulings (see People v Cunningham, 12 AD3d 1131, 1132-1133 [2004]), including his [920]*920contentions that he was denied his right of confrontation by the admission of testimony suggesting that he had been implicated by his codefendant (see People v Walker, 71 NY2d 1018, 1019-1020 [1988], rearg denied 72 NY2d 953 [1988]; People v Carter, 1 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 738 [2004]) and by the court’s restriction of his cross-examination of a prosecution witness (see People v Dunbar, 145 AD2d 501, 501-502 [1988]). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, we reject the contentions of defendant that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), he was denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]) and he was denied his right to testify (see People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]). Present — Green, J.P, Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 919, 788 N.Y.S.2d 778, 2005 NY Slip Op 806, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-craig-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack