People v. Mossop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mossop

191 A.D.2d 715, 596 N.Y.S.2d 719

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

DecidedMarch 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 715 (People v. Mossop) 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. Mossop, 191 A.D.2d 715, 596 N.Y.S.2d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered September 6, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The defendant did not demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly newly discovered evidence would probably change the result if a new trial were granted or that the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, CPL 330.30 [3]; People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950; People v Mendez, 147 AD2d 712). Furthermore, because the court was able to make its determination on the basis of the motion papers, it did not err in doing so without a hearing (see, CPL 330.40 [2] [c], [e] [ii]). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber and Santucci, 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 (Brill, J.), rendered September 6, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The defendant did not demonstrate by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the allegedly newly discovered evidence would probably change the result if a new trial were granted or that the evidence could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence (see, CPL 330.30 [3]; People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950; People v Mendez, 147 AD2d 712). Furthermore, because the court was able to make its determination on the basis of the motion papers, it did not err in doing so without a hearing (see, CPL 330.40 [2] [c], [e] [ii]). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 715, 596 N.Y.S.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mossop-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack