People v. McAlister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McAlister

280 A.D.2d 556, 720 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1772

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 556 (People v. McAlister) 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. McAlister, 280 A.D.2d 556, 720 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 8, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40 on the ground that he suffers from AIDS. The court engaged in a thorough analysis and consideration of the relevant factors and the circumstances of the defendant’s case (see, People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204), as well as a “sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual and of the People” (People v Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 127), and we agree with its conclusion that such relief was not warranted (see, People v Clayton, supra).

The defendant’s claim with respect to a remark made by the prosecutor during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, 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 (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 8, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL 210.40 on the ground that he suffers from AIDS. The court engaged in a thorough analysis and consideration of the relevant factors and the circumstances of the defendant’s case (see, People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204), as well as a “sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual and of the People” (People v Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 127), and we agree with its conclusion that such relief was not warranted (see, People v Clayton, supra).

The defendant’s claim with respect to a remark made by the prosecutor during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 556, 720 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcalister-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack