People v. Nakovics

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nakovics

144 A.D.2d 704, 535 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12392

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 1988·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered May 9, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the prosecution improperly elicited photographic identification testimony on direct examination. Defense counsel objected but refrained from making a motion for a mistrial. The defendant contends that the failure to move for a mistrial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. A review of the record reveals that the attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; see also, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v Harris, 109 AD2d 351).

The defendant’s further contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.15 [2]), and review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, 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, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered May 9, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the prosecution improperly elicited photographic identification testimony on direct examination. Defense counsel objected but refrained from making a motion for a mistrial. The defendant contends that the failure to move for a mistrial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. A review of the record reveals that the attorney provided meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; see also, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v Harris, 109 AD2d 351).

The defendant’s further contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.15 [2]), and review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.

People v. Nakovics, 144 A.D.2d 704, 535 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

144 A.D.2d 704 (People v. Nakovics) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related