People v. Pimenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pimenthal

253 A.D.2d 696, 677 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9691

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 696 (People v. Pimenthal) 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. Pimenthal, 253 A.D.2d 696, 677 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered July 20, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years, 3V2 to 7 years, and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation was in direct response to defendant’s closing arguments, in which he attacked the credibility of the People’s witnesses and accused the prosecutor of pursuing the case in “bad faith”, and therefore did not exceed the broad latitude accorded on summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976).

We have reviewed the arguments raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered July 20, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years, 3V2 to 7 years, and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation was in direct response to defendant’s closing arguments, in which he attacked the credibility of the People’s witnesses and accused the prosecutor of pursuing the case in “bad faith”, and therefore did not exceed the broad latitude accorded on summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976).

We have reviewed the arguments raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 696, 677 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pimenthal-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack