People v. Emel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Emel

303 A.D.2d 1008, 756 N.Y.S.2d 807, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 1008 (People v. Emel) 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. Emel, 303 A.D.2d 1008, 756 N.Y.S.2d 807, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Lane, J.), entered July 19, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the verdict convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and menacing in the second degree (§ 120.14 [1]) is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial when Supreme Court stated in its jury charge that this “[is] not a complicated case.” The court was merely explaining to the jury why it was not necessary for the court to summarize the testimony of the witnesses (cf. People v Mabry, 58 AD2d 897 [1977]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County (Lane, J.), entered July 19, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the verdict convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and menacing in the second degree (§ 120.14 [1]) is against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial when Supreme Court stated in its jury charge that this “[is] not a complicated case.” The court was merely explaining to the jury why it was not necessary for the court to summarize the testimony of the witnesses (cf. People v Mabry, 58 AD2d 897 [1977]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 1008, 756 N.Y.S.2d 807, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-emel-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack