People v. Fair

308 A.D.2d 597, 765 N.Y.S.2d 514
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 29, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 597 (People v. Fair) 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. Fair, 308 A.D.2d 597, 765 N.Y.S.2d 514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered June 14, 2001, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court failed to respond meaningfully to the jury’s third note regarding the counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and acting in concert. The defendant’s claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Clark, 298 AD2d 461 [2002]). In any event, the trial court’s response to the note, which the court [598]*598discussed with counsel before it was rendered, was meaningful (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992]; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131-132 [1984]; People v Chase, 225 AD2d 789, 790 [1996]). Furthermore, trial counsel provided meaningful representation at all stages of the proceedings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Rodriguez
89 A.D.3d 1115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Romero
71 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Benard
69 A.D.3d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Romgobind
40 A.D.3d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Lampon
38 A.D.3d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Brown
23 A.D.3d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Fair
14 A.D.3d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 A.D.2d 597, 765 N.Y.S.2d 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fair-nyappdiv-2003.