People v. Dukuray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dukuray

41 A.D.3d 141, 835 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedJune 7, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 141 (People v. Dukuray) 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. Dukuray, 41 A.D.3d 141, 835 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered February 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge and the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court properly instructed the jury on all the elements of second-degree assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3), and that the challenged summation remark was a permissible comment on the fact that the defense case did not include testimony from defendant’s brother (see People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994-995 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered February 18, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge and the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court properly instructed the jury on all the elements of second-degree assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3), and that the challenged summation remark was a permissible comment on the fact that the defense case did not include testimony from defendant’s brother (see People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994-995 [1994]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 141, 835 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dukuray-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack