People v. Riccione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riccione

193 A.D.2d 705, 598 N.Y.S.2d 976

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

DecidedMay 10, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 705 (People v. Riccione) 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. Riccione, 193 A.D.2d 705, 598 N.Y.S.2d 976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered November 13, 1990, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of the burglary and ransacking of an apartment in Queens. The defendant’s argument concerning the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction relating to the proper use of his prior inconsistent statement was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we decline to reach this argument in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Watford, 146 AD2d 590). The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, 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, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered November 13, 1990, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of the burglary and ransacking of an apartment in Queens. The defendant’s argument concerning the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction relating to the proper use of his prior inconsistent statement was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we decline to reach this argument in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Watford, 146 AD2d 590). The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 705, 598 N.Y.S.2d 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riccione-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack