People v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fitzgerald

157 A.D.2d 666, 550 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 666 (People v. Fitzgerald) 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. Fitzgerald, 157 A.D.2d 666, 550 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered January 6, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Decambre, 143 AD2d 927; People v Battles, 141 AD2d 748; cf., People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830). Since the record establishes the defendant’s guilt by overwhelming evidence we decline to review this alleged error in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Pagan, 152 AD2d 756; People v Lugo, 150 AD2d 502; cf., People v Testaverde, 143 AD2d 208). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, 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, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered January 6, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was not proper is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to its submission (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Decambre, 143 AD2d 927; People v Battles, 141 AD2d 748; cf., People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830). Since the record establishes the defendant’s guilt by overwhelming evidence we decline to review this alleged error in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Pagan, 152 AD2d 756; People v Lugo, 150 AD2d 502; cf., People v Testaverde, 143 AD2d 208). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 666, 550 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fitzgerald-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack