People v. Moreno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moreno

15 A.D.3d 225, 788 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1280

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 225 (People v. Moreno) 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. Moreno, 15 A.D.3d 225, 788 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered June 12, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years and 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim of error in connection with the exercise of peremptory challenges during jury selection is unpreserved (People v Mancuso, 22 NY2d 679 [1968], cert denied sub nom. Morganti v New York, 393 US 946 [1968]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal (see People v Levy, 194 AD2d 319 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 890 [1993]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered June 12, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years and 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim of error in connection with the exercise of peremptory challenges during jury selection is unpreserved (People v Mancuso, 22 NY2d 679 [1968], cert denied sub nom. Morganti v New York, 393 US 946 [1968]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal (see People v Levy, 194 AD2d 319 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 890 [1993]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 225, 788 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moreno-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack