People v. George

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. George

125 A.D.2d 330, 508 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62597

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 330 (People v. George) 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. George, 125 A.D.2d 330, 508 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered June 25, 1984, convicting him of arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain omissions from the trial court’s charge to the jury were erroneous and prejudicial is not persuasive. This issue was not preserved for appellate review. In addition, the defendant was not entitled to have the affirmative defense to arson in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 150.10 [2]) charged to the jury, since he did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the basic elements of that defense (see, Penal Law § 25.00 [2]; see also, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299).

The defendant’s trial counsel afforded him "meaningful representation” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered June 25, 1984, convicting him of arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain omissions from the trial court’s charge to the jury were erroneous and prejudicial is not persuasive. This issue was not preserved for appellate review. In addition, the defendant was not entitled to have the affirmative defense to arson in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 150.10 [2]) charged to the jury, since he did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the basic elements of that defense (see, Penal Law § 25.00 [2]; see also, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299).

The defendant’s trial counsel afforded him "meaningful representation” (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 330, 508 N.Y.S.2d 995, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-george-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack