People v. Pantaleon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pantaleon

261 A.D.2d 344, 690 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5796

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

DecidedMay 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 344 (People v. Pantaleon) 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. Pantaleon, 261 A.D.2d 344, 690 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), rendered March 31, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

By failing to object, or by failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant has not preserved his current claims of prosecutorial misconduct in cross-examination and summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Donnino, J.), rendered March 31, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

By failing to object, or by failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant has not preserved his current claims of prosecutorial misconduct in cross-examination and summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 344, 690 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pantaleon-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack