People v. Hobbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hobbs

1 A.D.2d 610, 767 N.Y.S.2d 665

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 610 (People v. Hobbs) 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. Hobbs, 1 A.D.2d 610, 767 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered November 7, 2001, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claims regarding the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct during his cross-examination of the defendant and his summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]; People v Rosario, 195 AD2d 577 [1993]). In any event, the trial court sustained the defense counsel’s objections to those comments that were improper, and gave curative instructions, which were not objected to. Altman, J.P, Florio, Luciano 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, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered November 7, 2001, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claims regarding the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct during his cross-examination of the defendant and his summation are largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]; People v Rosario, 195 AD2d 577 [1993]). In any event, the trial court sustained the defense counsel’s objections to those comments that were improper, and gave curative instructions, which were not objected to. Altman, J.P, Florio, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 610, 767 N.Y.S.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hobbs-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack