People v. Jung

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jung

22 A.D.3d 506, 801 N.Y.S.2d 537

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 506 (People v. Jung) 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. Jung, 22 A.D.3d 506, 801 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered August 11, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge concerning the Supreme Court’s charge on the issue of justification is impreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the charge as given or request a supplemental charge (see CPL 470.50 [2]; People v Moultrie, 6 AD3d 730 [2004]; People v Santos, 280 AD2d 561). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Holmes, 12 AD3d 532 [2004]; cf. People v Feuer, 11 AD3d 633 [2004]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, 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 (Lewis, J.), rendered August 11, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge concerning the Supreme Court’s charge on the issue of justification is impreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the charge as given or request a supplemental charge (see CPL 470.50 [2]; People v Moultrie, 6 AD3d 730 [2004]; People v Santos, 280 AD2d 561). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Holmes, 12 AD3d 532 [2004]; cf. People v Feuer, 11 AD3d 633 [2004]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 506, 801 N.Y.S.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jung-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack