People v. Mayas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayas

126 A.D.2d 574, 510 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41710

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 574 (People v. Mayas) 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. Mayas, 126 A.D.2d 574, 510 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered November 12, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant raised no objection at trial to the court’s charge. Thus, his present claim that the court’s instructions on justification were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Harrell, 59 NY2d 620, 622; People v Richburg, 109 AD2d 899, 900). In any event, the defendant’s claim is without merit. The court’s enunciation of an objective standard with regard to the requirement of reasonableness under the defense of justification (see, Penal Law § 35.15), was a correct statement of the law (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 112, 114). Insofar as People v Wagman (99 AD2d 519), and People v Desmond (93 AD2d 822), held to the contrary, they have been overruled. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, 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, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered November 12, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant raised no objection at trial to the court’s charge. Thus, his present claim that the court’s instructions on justification were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Harrell, 59 NY2d 620, 622; People v Richburg, 109 AD2d 899, 900). In any event, the defendant’s claim is without merit. The court’s enunciation of an objective standard with regard to the requirement of reasonableness under the defense of justification (see, Penal Law § 35.15), was a correct statement of the law (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 112, 114). Insofar as People v Wagman (99 AD2d 519), and People v Desmond (93 AD2d 822), held to the contrary, they have been overruled. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 574, 510 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayas-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack