People v. Neil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Neil

213 A.D.2d 1014, 625 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1014 (People v. Neil) 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. Neil, 213 A.D.2d 1014, 625 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for review his present contention that County Court erred in not requiring the prosecution to articulate race-neutral reasons for the exercise of peremptory challenges against two prospective jurors, one black and one hispanic. Defendant cannot rely upon the objection of the attorney for the codefendant to preserve an issue for review (see, People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843, 846; People v Reid, 192 AD2d 1117, lv denied 81 NY2d 1078).

Defendant’s contention that the court’s charge on accessorial liability with respect to counts three and four was inadequate is unpreserved (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wiggins, Jr., J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for review his present contention that County Court erred in not requiring the prosecution to articulate race-neutral reasons for the exercise of peremptory challenges against two prospective jurors, one black and one hispanic. Defendant cannot rely upon the objection of the attorney for the codefendant to preserve an issue for review (see, People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843, 846; People v Reid, 192 AD2d 1117, lv denied 81 NY2d 1078).

Defendant’s contention that the court’s charge on accessorial liability with respect to counts three and four was inadequate is unpreserved (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Wiggins, Jr., J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1014, 625 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-neil-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack