People v. Lyons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lyons

150 A.D.2d 804, 542 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7257

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

DecidedMay 30, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 804 (People v. Lyons) 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. Lyons, 150 A.D.2d 804, 542 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), rendered January 24, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention we conclude that the People fully complied with CPL 240.20 (1) (c) by forwarding the two fingerprint reports in their possession prior to trial and by informing defense counsel that the fingerprint evidence was available for inspection at a mutually convenient time. We do not find that the People were required to inform the defendant of the existence of unidentifiable smudges found at the scene (see, People v Murray, 140 AD2d 949, lv denied 72 NY2d 960).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, 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, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), rendered January 24, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention we conclude that the People fully complied with CPL 240.20 (1) (c) by forwarding the two fingerprint reports in their possession prior to trial and by informing defense counsel that the fingerprint evidence was available for inspection at a mutually convenient time. We do not find that the People were required to inform the defendant of the existence of unidentifiable smudges found at the scene (see, People v Murray, 140 AD2d 949, lv denied 72 NY2d 960).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 804, 542 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lyons-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack