People v. Faison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Faison

258 A.D.2d 629, 682 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 629 (People v. Faison) 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. Faison, 258 A.D.2d 629, 682 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered September 9, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brisbane, 244 AD2d 498). In any [630]*630event, the allegedly improper summation remarks were either a fair statement of the facts in evidence or a fair response to defense counsel’s summation remarks (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered September 9, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brisbane, 244 AD2d 498). In any [630]*630event, the allegedly improper summation remarks were either a fair statement of the facts in evidence or a fair response to defense counsel’s summation remarks (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 629, 682 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-faison-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack