People v. Eisenreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eisenreich

121 A.D.2d 561, 503 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58546

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

DecidedJune 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 561 (People v. Eisenreich) 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. Eisenreich, 121 A.D.2d 561, 503 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered July 19, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant explicitly declined to join in his codefendant’s motion for a severance of his and his codefendant’s trials pursuant to CPL 200.40. Therefore, he has failed to preserve any issue of law with respect thereto for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]); in any event, the defendant’s and his codefendant’s statements were interlocking and, therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the codefendant’s motion for a severance (see, People v Cruz, 66 NY2d 61, 69; CPL 200.40 [1] [c]). The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered July 19, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant explicitly declined to join in his codefendant’s motion for a severance of his and his codefendant’s trials pursuant to CPL 200.40. Therefore, he has failed to preserve any issue of law with respect thereto for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]); in any event, the defendant’s and his codefendant’s statements were interlocking and, therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the codefendant’s motion for a severance (see, People v Cruz, 66 NY2d 61, 69; CPL 200.40 [1] [c]). The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 561, 503 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eisenreich-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack