People v. O'Keefe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Keefe

81 A.D.3d 525, 916 N.Y.S.2d 508

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.3d 525 (People v. O'Keefe) 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'Keefe, 81 A.D.3d 525, 916 N.Y.S.2d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), entered April 28, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his backpack. However, the error in admitting the tool and other physical evidence recovered from the backpack was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Without the physical evidence, there was still overwhelming proof of every element of burglary, including the element of entry with intent to commit a crime.

Defendant’s challenge to the People’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 144 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), entered April 28, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from his backpack. However, the error in admitting the tool and other physical evidence recovered from the backpack was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Without the physical evidence, there was still overwhelming proof of every element of burglary, including the element of entry with intent to commit a crime.

Defendant’s challenge to the People’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 144 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 525, 916 N.Y.S.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-okeefe-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack