People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawrence

247 A.D.2d 635, 669 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1772

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 635 (People v. Lawrence) 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. Lawrence, 247 A.D.2d 635, 669 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenweig, J.), rendered July 14, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgement is affirmed.

The defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to vacate the judgment was properly denied. It is well settled that “[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony” (People v Shilitano, 218 NY 161, 170). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant made a statement which positively identified him as the individual who relieved the complainant of his jewelry at gunpoint, the complainant’s recantation would probably not change the result if a new trial were granted, and the court properly denied the defendant’s motion without a hearing (see, People v Turner, 215 AD2d 703; People v Rodriguez, 201 AD2d 683; People v Donald, 107 AD2d 818).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Florio 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, Queens County (Rosenweig, J.), rendered July 14, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgement is affirmed.

The defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to vacate the judgment was properly denied. It is well settled that “[t]here is no form of proof so unreliable as recanting testimony” (People v Shilitano, 218 NY 161, 170). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant made a statement which positively identified him as the individual who relieved the complainant of his jewelry at gunpoint, the complainant’s recantation would probably not change the result if a new trial were granted, and the court properly denied the defendant’s motion without a hearing (see, People v Turner, 215 AD2d 703; People v Rodriguez, 201 AD2d 683; People v Donald, 107 AD2d 818).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Thompson, J. P., Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 635, 669 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack