People v. Lafferty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lafferty

144 A.D.2d 1038, 535 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14707

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 1038 (People v. Lafferty) 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. Lafferty, 144 A.D.2d 1038, 535 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to change venue from Chautauqua County denied. Memorandum: We conclude that defendant has not on this application met his burden of demonstrating that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Chautauqua County (CPL 230.20 [2]). If it develops during the voir dire that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may then be made. The relief requested in the application before us now is premature. (See, People v DiPiazza, 24 NY2d 342; People v Carlson, 143 AD2d 542; People v Simmons, 132 AD2d 1009; People v Oakes, 130 AD2d 980; People v Rivera, 130 AD2d 980.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Motion to change venue from Chautauqua County denied. Memorandum: We conclude that defendant has not on this application met his burden of demonstrating that there is "reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Chautauqua County (CPL 230.20 [2]). If it develops during the voir dire that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may then be made. The relief requested in the application before us now is premature. (See, People v DiPiazza, 24 NY2d 342; People v Carlson, 143 AD2d 542; People v Simmons, 132 AD2d 1009; People v Oakes, 130 AD2d 980; People v Rivera, 130 AD2d 980.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 1038, 535 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lafferty-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack