People v. Loo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Loo

200 A.D.2d 531, 608 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 632

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 531 (People v. Loo) 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. Loo, 200 A.D.2d 531, 608 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered May 7, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of six months imprisonment and 4 Vi years probation on each count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court gave an unbalanced charge to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find the contention without merit. Rather than marshalling the evidence in the People’s favor, the court merely set forth the evidence that had been presented in order to deliver limiting instructions on the manner in which the jury was to consider the evidence. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered May 7, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of six months imprisonment and 4 Vi years probation on each count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court gave an unbalanced charge to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find the contention without merit. Rather than marshalling the evidence in the People’s favor, the court merely set forth the evidence that had been presented in order to deliver limiting instructions on the manner in which the jury was to consider the evidence. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 531, 608 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-loo-nyappdiv-1994.