People v. Fleurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fleurant

266 A.D.2d 402, 698 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11469

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Fleurant) 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. Fleurant, 266 A.D.2d 402, 698 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered March 7, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[403]*403Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that he did not timely receive certain alleged Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286) and that, therefore, he is entitled to a new trial (see, People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843; People v Batista, 233 AD2d 195). In any event, he received the alleged Rosario material in sufficient time to make meaningful use of it, and was not substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56; People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, 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 (Ferdinand, J.), rendered March 7, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[403]*403Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that he did not timely receive certain alleged Rosario material (see, People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286) and that, therefore, he is entitled to a new trial (see, People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843; People v Batista, 233 AD2d 195). In any event, he received the alleged Rosario material in sufficient time to make meaningful use of it, and was not substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v Banch, 80 NY2d 610; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56; People v Perez, 65 NY2d 154).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 402, 698 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fleurant-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack