People v. Palemon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palemon

131 A.D.2d 513, 516 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47967

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

DecidedJune 1, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 131 A.D.2d 513 (People v. Palemon) 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. Palemon, 131 A.D.2d 513, 516 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered June 13, 1985, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to properly preserve the issue of the propriety of certain of the prosecutrix’s comments on summation by failing to object during the trial. Where objections were made and sustained, the defense counsel did not ask for a mistrial or express dissatisfaction with the court’s curative instructions, and thus these matters are unpreserved for our review as well (see, People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, 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 (Meyerson, J.), rendered June 13, 1985, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to properly preserve the issue of the propriety of certain of the prosecutrix’s comments on summation by failing to object during the trial. Where objections were made and sustained, the defense counsel did not ask for a mistrial or express dissatisfaction with the court’s curative instructions, and thus these matters are unpreserved for our review as well (see, People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.2d 513, 516 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palemon-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack