People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. King

190 A.D.2d 1051, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1270

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1051 (People v. King) 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. King, 190 A.D.2d 1051, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was deprived of .a fair trial by numerous evidentiary rulings of the trial court and was seriously prejudiced by the trial court’s response to the jury’s request for additional information (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to review those issues in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised by defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, and we find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.— Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was deprived of .a fair trial by numerous evidentiary rulings of the trial court and was seriously prejudiced by the trial court’s response to the jury’s request for additional information (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to review those issues in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised by defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, and we find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.— Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 1051, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-king-nyappdiv-1993.