People v. Falco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Falco

130 A.D.2d 762, 516 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46781

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

DecidedMay 26, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 130 A.D.2d 762 (People v. Falco) 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. Falco, 130 A.D.2d 762, 516 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), rendered September 7, 1984, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and prohibited use of a weapon, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury as to the defense of justification. However, the record reveals that the defendant’s trial counsel never requested such a charge. Therefore, the error was not preserved for appellate review. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our interests of justice jurisdiction to review the issue.

The sentence imposed was- neither harsh nor excessive. [763]*763Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Harwood, 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, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), rendered September 7, 1984, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and prohibited use of a weapon, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury as to the defense of justification. However, the record reveals that the defendant’s trial counsel never requested such a charge. Therefore, the error was not preserved for appellate review. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our interests of justice jurisdiction to review the issue.

The sentence imposed was- neither harsh nor excessive. [763]*763Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.2d 762, 516 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-falco-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack