People v. Kovacic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kovacic

255 A.D.2d 457, 680 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11977

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 457 (People v. Kovacic) 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. Kovacic, 255 A.D.2d 457, 680 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 27, 1995, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his trial should have been severed from that of a codefendant is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, his contention that he was prejudiced by the admission of the redacted statement of that codefendant, who did not testify at the joint trial, is without merit (see, People v Sutter, 162 AD2d 644).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, 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, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 27, 1995, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his trial should have been severed from that of a codefendant is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, his contention that he was prejudiced by the admission of the redacted statement of that codefendant, who did not testify at the joint trial, is without merit (see, People v Sutter, 162 AD2d 644).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 457, 680 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kovacic-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack