People v. Paternoster
140 A.D.2d 995, 529 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6246
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 27, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to show that when defendant unlawfully entered the buildings he intended to commit the crime of larceny therein.
The prosecutor’s delay in providing defendant with the statements made by the witness did not constitute reversible [996]*996error because no prejudice to the defense accrued thereby (see, People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56). (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J. — burglary, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Paternoster, 140 A.D.2d 995, 529 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).
140 A.D.2d 995 (People v. Paternoster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Violante
144 A.D.2d 995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)