People v. George

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. George

292 A.D.2d 464, 738 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2527

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 464 (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, 292 A.D.2d 464, 738 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered December 8, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[465]*465Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify without meeting the requirements of CPL 60.25 (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the defendant’s attempt to apply CPL 60.25 to the circumstances here is misplaced, as no witness identification of the defendant was involved (see, CPL 60.25; People v Bayron, 66 NY2d 77).

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, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered December 8, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[465]*465Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify without meeting the requirements of CPL 60.25 (see, People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the defendant’s attempt to apply CPL 60.25 to the circumstances here is misplaced, as no witness identification of the defendant was involved (see, CPL 60.25; People v Bayron, 66 NY2d 77).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 464, 738 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-george-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack