People v. O'Garro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Garro

125 A.D.2d 609, 509 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62899

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 609 (People v. O'Garro) 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. O'Garro, 125 A.D.2d 609, 509 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered December 9, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[610]*610Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court admitted testimony which amounted to impermissible bolstering was not preserved for review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Cummings, 109 AD2d 748), and in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to review it.

Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, 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 (Kooper, J.), rendered December 9, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[610]*610Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court admitted testimony which amounted to impermissible bolstering was not preserved for review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Cummings, 109 AD2d 748), and in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to review it.

Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 609, 509 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ogarro-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack