People v. Peak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peak

174 A.D.2d 1045, 573 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9002

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1045 (People v. Peak) 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. Peak, 174 A.D.2d 1045, 573 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to submit counts charging intentional and reckless conduct in the alternative is unpreserved and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Carey, 151 AD2d 989, lv denied 74 NY2d 806; People v Dukett, 147 AD2d 938, lv denied 73 NY2d 976). Defendant raised that issue in a posttrial motion but failed to object before the jury was discharged, when any defect could have been remedied by resubmission to the jury (see, People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find none that requires reversal. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Parker, J.—Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to submit counts charging intentional and reckless conduct in the alternative is unpreserved and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Carey, 151 AD2d 989, lv denied 74 NY2d 806; People v Dukett, 147 AD2d 938, lv denied 73 NY2d 976). Defendant raised that issue in a posttrial motion but failed to object before the jury was discharged, when any defect could have been remedied by resubmission to the jury (see, People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745).

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find none that requires reversal. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Parker, J.—Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1045, 573 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peak-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack