People v. Moss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moss

149 A.D.2d 740, 540 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5381

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

DecidedApril 24, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 740 (People v. Moss) 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. Moss, 149 A.D.2d 740, 540 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bourgeois, J.), rendered September 9, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), 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 for a severance (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905). There was not such a substantial difference in the quantity and quality of the evidence which the prosecution presented with respect to the defendant and the codefendants as to require a separate trial in the proper administration of justice (see, People v Larkin, 135 AD2d 834; People v Griffin, 135 AD2d 730; see also, People v Kampshoff, 53 AD2d 325, 337-338, cert denied 433 US 911; cf., People v Pilon, 30 AD2d 365, 367-368).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Harwood, 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 (Bourgeois, J.), rendered September 9, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), 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 for a severance (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905). There was not such a substantial difference in the quantity and quality of the evidence which the prosecution presented with respect to the defendant and the codefendants as to require a separate trial in the proper administration of justice (see, People v Larkin, 135 AD2d 834; People v Griffin, 135 AD2d 730; see also, People v Kampshoff, 53 AD2d 325, 337-338, cert denied 433 US 911; cf., People v Pilon, 30 AD2d 365, 367-368).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 740, 540 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moss-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack