People v. Farrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Farrell

266 A.D.2d 811, 698 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 811 (People v. Farrell) 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. Farrell, 266 A.D.2d 811, 698 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Penal Law § 165.08), defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined a defense witness by using a confidential presentence investigation report. That contention is not preserved for our review by defendant’s general objection to two questions (see, People v Brailsford, 106 AD2d 648, 649; see also, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 366, rearg denied 33 NY2d 657, cert denied 416 US 905), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions raised in the pro se supplemental brief. Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient (see, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926). We further conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Penal Law § 165.08), defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined a defense witness by using a confidential presentence investigation report. That contention is not preserved for our review by defendant’s general objection to two questions (see, People v Brailsford, 106 AD2d 648, 649; see also, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 366, rearg denied 33 NY2d 657, cert denied 416 US 905), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions raised in the pro se supplemental brief. Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient (see, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926). We further conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 811, 698 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-farrell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack