People v. Ferrentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ferrentino

240 A.D.2d 339, 659 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954

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

DecidedJune 26, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 339 (People v. Ferrentino) 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. Ferrentino, 240 A.D.2d 339, 659 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), rendered March 30, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s generalized objections failed to preserve his present challenges to the prosecutor’s remarks on summation [340]*340(People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the comments did not constitute expressions of personal opinion, and were proper responses to the defense attack upon the credibility of the People’s sole eyewitness within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819; People v Nai Hing Liang, 208 AD2d 401). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), rendered March 30, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s generalized objections failed to preserve his present challenges to the prosecutor’s remarks on summation [340]*340(People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the comments did not constitute expressions of personal opinion, and were proper responses to the defense attack upon the credibility of the People’s sole eyewitness within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see, People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819; People v Nai Hing Liang, 208 AD2d 401). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 339, 659 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ferrentino-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack