People v. Gardner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gardner

307 A.D.2d 367, 762 N.Y.S.2d 827

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

DecidedJuly 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 367 (People v. Gardner) 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. Gardner, 307 A.D.2d 367, 762 N.Y.S.2d 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered April 6, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention regarding the alleged inadequacy of the court’s adverse inference charge, imposed as a sanction for the loss of Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Roe, 196 AD2d 899, 900 [1993]; People v Fields, 215 AD2d 775, 776 [1995]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 [1988]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Townes, Mastro and Rivera, 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 (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered April 6, 2000, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention regarding the alleged inadequacy of the court’s adverse inference charge, imposed as a sanction for the loss of Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Roe, 196 AD2d 899, 900 [1993]; People v Fields, 215 AD2d 775, 776 [1995]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937 [1988]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Townes, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 367, 762 N.Y.S.2d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gardner-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack