People v. Pettiford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pettiford

7 A.D.3d 736, 776 N.Y.S.2d 507

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

DecidedMay 17, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 736 (People v. Pettiford) 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. Pettiford, 7 A.D.3d 736, 776 N.Y.S.2d 507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered November 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (eight counts) and robbery in the second degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly accepted the invocation by a defense witness of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, since testifying would have subjected him to a real possibility of criminal prosecution (see People v Arroyo, 46 NY2d 928 [1979]; People v Faulk, 255 AD2d 333 [1998]; see also Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479, 486-487 [1951]).

[737]*737The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, 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, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered November 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (eight counts) and robbery in the second degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly accepted the invocation by a defense witness of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, since testifying would have subjected him to a real possibility of criminal prosecution (see People v Arroyo, 46 NY2d 928 [1979]; People v Faulk, 255 AD2d 333 [1998]; see also Hoffman v United States, 341 US 479, 486-487 [1951]).

[737]*737The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 736, 776 N.Y.S.2d 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pettiford-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack