People v. Mays

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mays

84 A.D.2d 553, 443 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15621

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.2d 553 (People v. Mays) 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. Mays, 84 A.D.2d 553, 443 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Tsoucalas, J.), rendered September 5,1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The Trial Justice’s charge regarding defendant’s alibi defense essentially follows the language that we have repeatedly held to constitute reversible error. (See People v Bauer, 83 AD2d 869, and the cases cited therein.) Inasmuch as a new trial is mandated, we note that under the circumstances of this case, Police Officer Esty’s testimony that Ettora Romano had identified defendant constituted inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded. (See People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471, 477.) Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Tsoucalas, J.), rendered September 5,1978, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The Trial Justice’s charge regarding defendant’s alibi defense essentially follows the language that we have repeatedly held to constitute reversible error. (See People v Bauer, 83 AD2d 869, and the cases cited therein.) Inasmuch as a new trial is mandated, we note that under the circumstances of this case, Police Officer Esty’s testimony that Ettora Romano had identified defendant constituted inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded. (See People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471, 477.) Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.2d 553, 443 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mays-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack