People v. Marchand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marchand

104 A.D.2d 624, 479 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20052

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 17, 1984·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Reargument of an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenspun, J.), rendered February 5, 1979, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, which was affirmed by order of this court dated September 28, 1981 (People v Marchand, 83 AD2d 995). By order of this court dated July 5, 1983, the defendant’s pro se motion for reargument was granted and the parties were directed to serve and file their briefs.

Upon reargument the original determination of this court is adhered to.

Defendant’s contention regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel’s failure to arrange for defendant to appear and testify before the Grand Jury cannot be determined on the record before us and “would be more properly raised in a postjudgment motion made pursuant to CPL 440.10, at which time additional background facts could be developed (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998; People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852)” (People v Leonard, 102 AD2d 857).

We have considered the other contentions raised upon reargument and have found them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Reargument of an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenspun, J.), rendered February 5, 1979, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, which was affirmed by order of this court dated September 28, 1981 (People v Marchand, 83 AD2d 995). By order of this court dated July 5, 1983, the defendant’s pro se motion for reargument was granted and the parties were directed to serve and file their briefs.

Upon reargument the original determination of this court is adhered to.

Defendant’s contention regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel’s failure to arrange for defendant to appear and testify before the Grand Jury cannot be determined on the record before us and “would be more properly raised in a postjudgment motion made pursuant to CPL 440.10, at which time additional background facts could be developed (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 998; People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852)” (People v Leonard, 102 AD2d 857).

We have considered the other contentions raised upon reargument and have found them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

People v. Marchand, 104 A.D.2d 624, 479 N.Y.S.2d 754, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

104 A.D.2d 624 (People v. Marchand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related