People v. Massri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Massri

171 A.D.2d 695

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 171 A.D.2d 695 (People v. Massri) 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. Massri, 171 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered April 26, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that a Trowbridge error was committed when a photograph of the lineup viewed by the complainant was received into evidence is without merit (see, People v Rawlings, 144 AD2d 500). The defendant’s other claims of improper bolstering are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 161 AD2d 777).

The defendant also contends that the prosecutor made improper comments during the course of summation and that the court’s charge was erroneous in several respects. None of these purported errors was objected to at trial and therefore these issues are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to reach the defendant’s claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered April 26, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that a Trowbridge error was committed when a photograph of the lineup viewed by the complainant was received into evidence is without merit (see, People v Rawlings, 144 AD2d 500). The defendant’s other claims of improper bolstering are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brown, 161 AD2d 777).

The defendant also contends that the prosecutor made improper comments during the course of summation and that the court’s charge was erroneous in several respects. None of these purported errors was objected to at trial and therefore these issues are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to reach the defendant’s claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-massri-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack