People v. Noble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Noble

227 A.D.2d 238, 642 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5256

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

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 238 (People v. Noble) 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. Noble, 227 A.D.2d 238, 642 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered March 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts) and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing her to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years, 2 to 4 years, and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Review of defendant’s claim that she was denied her right to be present at sidebar discussions with prospective jurors during voir dire is precluded since defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record showing any such absence (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772; People v Brown, 186 AD2d 356). The inconclusive affidavit of the court reporter submitted by defendant is dehors the record and may not properly be considered on this appeal. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered March 2, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts) and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing her to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years, 2 to 4 years, and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Review of defendant’s claim that she was denied her right to be present at sidebar discussions with prospective jurors during voir dire is precluded since defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record showing any such absence (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772; People v Brown, 186 AD2d 356). The inconclusive affidavit of the court reporter submitted by defendant is dehors the record and may not properly be considered on this appeal. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 238, 642 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-noble-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack