People v. Frederick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frederick

259 A.D.2d 335, 684 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2765

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 335 (People v. Frederick) 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. Frederick, 259 A.D.2d 335, 684 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered September 10, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

By making a generalized objection, defendant failed to preserve his present challenge to a comment on defendant’s credibility contained in the prosecutor’s summation, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that it was an isolated and somewhat innocuous comment, and certainly not part of a pattern of inflammatory remarks, and it could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara Newman, J.), rendered September 10, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

By making a generalized objection, defendant failed to preserve his present challenge to a comment on defendant’s credibility contained in the prosecutor’s summation, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that it was an isolated and somewhat innocuous comment, and certainly not part of a pattern of inflammatory remarks, and it could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial (see, People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 335, 684 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frederick-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack