People v. Kinsella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kinsella

245 A.D.2d 1099, 666 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 1099 (People v. Kinsella) 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. Kinsella, 245 A.D.2d 1099, 666 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Additionally, defendant’s challenge to the “recent and exclusive possession” portion of the charge is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; [1100]*1100People v Dugan, 238 AD2d 922, lv denied 90 NY2d 857). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Additionally, defendant’s challenge to the “recent and exclusive possession” portion of the charge is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to reach it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; [1100]*1100People v Dugan, 238 AD2d 922, lv denied 90 NY2d 857). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 1099, 666 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kinsella-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack