People v. Gruttola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gruttola

53 A.D.2d 821, 386 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13644

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 821 (People v. Gruttola) 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. Gruttola, 53 A.D.2d 821, 386 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered September 19, 1973, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery, first degree, assault, first degree, attempted assault, and possession of a weapon as a felony, and imposing sentence, unanimously affirmed. Any difficulty in reconciling the apparent inconsistency between the crimes charged against defendant and his prior character, habits and reputation was resolved by the jury after a trial that we find free of any prejudicial error. Nevertheless, we suggest that the inconsistent factors above mentioned should appropriately be given early scrutiny by the Parole Board toward ameliorating the consequences of any claimed miscarriage of justice arising out of the conviction. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered September 19, 1973, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery, first degree, assault, first degree, attempted assault, and possession of a weapon as a felony, and imposing sentence, unanimously affirmed. Any difficulty in reconciling the apparent inconsistency between the crimes charged against defendant and his prior character, habits and reputation was resolved by the jury after a trial that we find free of any prejudicial error. Nevertheless, we suggest that the inconsistent factors above mentioned should appropriately be given early scrutiny by the Parole Board toward ameliorating the consequences of any claimed miscarriage of justice arising out of the conviction. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 821, 386 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gruttola-nyappdiv-1976.