People v. Gittens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gittens

149 A.D.2d 728, 540 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5370

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

DecidedApril 24, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 728 (People v. Gittens) 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. Gittens, 149 A.D.2d 728, 540 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), [729]*729rendered June 4, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court’s response to the jury’s request for a readback of the bulk of the trial testimony constituted an abuse of discretion. This contention was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, no error was committed (see, CPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296; cf., People v Andino, 113 AD2d 944; People v Arcarola, 96 AD2d 1081). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, 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 (Goldman, J.), [729]*729rendered June 4, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court’s response to the jury’s request for a readback of the bulk of the trial testimony constituted an abuse of discretion. This contention was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case, no error was committed (see, CPL 310.30; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296; cf., People v Andino, 113 AD2d 944; People v Arcarola, 96 AD2d 1081). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 728, 540 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gittens-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack