People v. Lydon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lydon

197 A.D.2d 640, 603 N.Y.S.2d 771

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 640 (People v. Lydon) 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. Lydon, 197 A.D.2d 640, 603 N.Y.S.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered October 24, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A joint trial with two juries was properly conducted in this case (see, CPL 200.40 [1] [b], [c]; People v Riccardo B., 73 NY2d 228). The defendant and his accomplice (see, People v Toal, 197 AD2d 650 [decided herewith]) were tried and convicted based upon much of the same evidence, and each had made a confession implicating the other, so that the use of two juries was appropriate (see, People v Riccardo B., supra).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court should have charged the defense of extreme emotional disturbance is meritless (see, e.g., People v White, 164 AD2d 413, affd 79 NY2d 900), as are all of the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered October 24, 1990, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A joint trial with two juries was properly conducted in this case (see, CPL 200.40 [1] [b], [c]; People v Riccardo B., 73 NY2d 228). The defendant and his accomplice (see, People v Toal, 197 AD2d 650 [decided herewith]) were tried and convicted based upon much of the same evidence, and each had made a confession implicating the other, so that the use of two juries was appropriate (see, People v Riccardo B., supra).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court should have charged the defense of extreme emotional disturbance is meritless (see, e.g., People v White, 164 AD2d 413, affd 79 NY2d 900), as are all of the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 640, 603 N.Y.S.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lydon-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack