People v. Kuz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kuz

69 A.D.3d 653, 891 N.Y.2d 294

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 5, 2010·Published

Opinion

The defendant contends that, with respect to the count charging assault in the first degree, the Supreme Court’s erroneous definition of serious physical injury (see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; People v Pittman, 33 AD3d 1118, 1119-1120 [2006]; cf. CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), deprived him of a fair trial (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We find that the charge did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and we decline to disturb the conviction in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction [654] (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; People v Malloy, 177 AD2d 511, 512 [1991]). Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur. .

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

The defendant contends that, with respect to the count charging assault in the first degree, the Supreme Court’s erroneous definition of serious physical injury (see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; People v Pittman, 33 AD3d 1118, 1119-1120 [2006]; cf. CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), deprived him of a fair trial (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We find that the charge did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and we decline to disturb the conviction in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction [654] (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; People v Malloy, 177 AD2d 511, 512 [1991]). Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur. .

People v. Kuz, 69 A.D.3d 653, 891 N.Y.2d 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

69 A.D.3d 653 (People v. Kuz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related