People v. Day

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Day

43 A.D.3d 707, 841 N.Y.S.2d 861

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 707 (People v. Day) 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. Day, 43 A.D.3d 707, 841 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered May 24, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of its merit, defendant’s argument that the court improperly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror is not a basis for reversal, because this panelist was excused through the exercise of one of the People’s peremptory challenges. Thus, defendant was not prejudiced (see People v Stone, 239 AD2d 872 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 943 [1997]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Buckley, Catterson, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered May 24, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of its merit, defendant’s argument that the court improperly denied his challenge for cause to a prospective juror is not a basis for reversal, because this panelist was excused through the exercise of one of the People’s peremptory challenges. Thus, defendant was not prejudiced (see People v Stone, 239 AD2d 872 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 943 [1997]). Concur— Andrias, J.E, Buckley, Catterson, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 707, 841 N.Y.S.2d 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-day-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack