People v. Dardain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dardain

226 A.D.2d 551, 640 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301

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

DecidedApril 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 551 (People v. Dardain) 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. Dardain, 226 A.D.2d 551, 640 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered October 25, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claims that the prosecution’s summation remarks improperly bolstered the People’s witnesses, misrepresented the position of the defense, and denigrated the defendant (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vasquez, 198 AD2d 460; People v Miller, 183 AD2d 790, 791). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any prosecutorial misconduct complained of would constitute harmless error (see, People v Weaver, 183 AD2d 797; People v Gibbs, 166 AD2d 454).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, 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 (Goldstein, J.), rendered October 25, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claims that the prosecution’s summation remarks improperly bolstered the People’s witnesses, misrepresented the position of the defense, and denigrated the defendant (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vasquez, 198 AD2d 460; People v Miller, 183 AD2d 790, 791). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any prosecutorial misconduct complained of would constitute harmless error (see, People v Weaver, 183 AD2d 797; People v Gibbs, 166 AD2d 454).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 551, 640 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dardain-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack