People v. Pharis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pharis

255 A.D.2d 124, 678 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11635

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 124 (People v. Pharis) 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. Pharis, 255 A.D.2d 124, 678 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 14, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor violated the court’s ruling regarding an uncharged crime is unpreserved, [125]*125and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it since the prosecutor’s summation remarks did not suggest that the victim’s prior observation of defendant occurred during another robbery, and were proper responses to those of defense counsel.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 14, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor violated the court’s ruling regarding an uncharged crime is unpreserved, [125]*125and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it since the prosecutor’s summation remarks did not suggest that the victim’s prior observation of defendant occurred during another robbery, and were proper responses to those of defense counsel.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 124, 678 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pharis-nyappdiv-1998.