People v. Read

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Read

236 A.D.2d 565, 654 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1316

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 565 (People v. Read) 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. Read, 236 A.D.2d 565, 654 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 3, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s denial of [566]*566his motion to reopen the case did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353). Furthermore, the court’s charge, which followed the language set forth in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 160.05, at 897-901), adequately apprised the jury of the governing law (see, People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Dering, 140 AD2d 538; People v Freaney, 108 AD2d 228, 231-232).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 3, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s denial of [566]*566his motion to reopen the case did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v Olsen, 34 NY2d 349, 353). Furthermore, the court’s charge, which followed the language set forth in the Criminal Jury Instructions (see, 2 CJI[NY] PL 160.05, at 897-901), adequately apprised the jury of the governing law (see, People v Dory, 59 NY2d 121; People v Dering, 140 AD2d 538; People v Freaney, 108 AD2d 228, 231-232).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 565, 654 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-read-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack