People v. Festa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Festa

131 A.D.2d 504, 516 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47955

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

DecidedJune 1, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 504 (People v. Festa) 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. Festa, 131 A.D.2d 504, 516 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), rendered November 7, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) on the ground of newly discovered evidence inasmuch as the application neither was in writing and supported by moving papers (CPL 330.40 [2] [a]) nor demonstrated that the evidence "could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part” (CPL 330.30 [3]; see, People v Heckstall, 76 AD2d 913). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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 (Dufficy, J.), rendered November 7, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3) on the ground of newly discovered evidence inasmuch as the application neither was in writing and supported by moving papers (CPL 330.40 [2] [a]) nor demonstrated that the evidence "could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part” (CPL 330.30 [3]; see, People v Heckstall, 76 AD2d 913). Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 504, 516 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-festa-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack