People v. Desire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Desire

113 A.D.2d 952, 493 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52572

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 113 A.D.2d 952 (People v. Desire) 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. Desire, 113 A.D.2d 952, 493 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

By order dated August 2, 1982, this court affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), rendered June 2, 1980, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence (People v Desire, 89 AD2d 936). By order dated March 2, 1984, this court granted defendant’s motion for reargument of his appeal and for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief. Defendant’s brief has now been filed and the People have responded thereto.

Upon reargument, original determination adhered to.

Our review of the record establishes that the identification testimony adduced at trial was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain defendant’s conviction. Moreover, the trial court properly exercised its discretion by permitting codefendant’s counsel to recall an eyewitness to reopen cross-examination based upon counsel’s offer of material and relevant proof (see, People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for appellate review. In any event, were we to consider these claims in the interest of justice, we would find that they are without merit.

[953]*953Accordingly, upon reargument, we adhere to our original determination. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

By order dated August 2, 1982, this court affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), rendered June 2, 1980, convicting defendant of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence (People v Desire, 89 AD2d 936). By order dated March 2, 1984, this court granted defendant’s motion for reargument of his appeal and for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief. Defendant’s brief has now been filed and the People have responded thereto.

Upon reargument, original determination adhered to.

Our review of the record establishes that the identification testimony adduced at trial was sufficient as a matter of law to sustain defendant’s conviction. Moreover, the trial court properly exercised its discretion by permitting codefendant’s counsel to recall an eyewitness to reopen cross-examination based upon counsel’s offer of material and relevant proof (see, People v Ventura, 35 NY2d 654).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for appellate review. In any event, were we to consider these claims in the interest of justice, we would find that they are without merit.

[953]*953Accordingly, upon reargument, we adhere to our original determination. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 952, 493 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-desire-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack