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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] Ordered 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] Ordered 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.

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

266 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Fleurant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related