People v. Riddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riddick

117 A.D.2d 632, 498 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52909

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 632 (People v. Riddick) 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. Riddick, 117 A.D.2d 632, 498 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), rendered September 23, 1980, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On the present record, it cannot be concluded that the Trial Justice unduly or improperly interjected himself into the proceedings or displayed hostility or bias prejudicial to defendant. Indeed, some of the actions of the court complained of by defendant actually resulted in rulings favorable to him. Viewing the record as a whole and closely examining the specific claims raised by defendant, the record clearly indicates that the court maintained an unbiased and impartial demeanor at trial and, when it did inject itself into the fact-finding process, it did so in the proper exercise of its supervisory function (see, e.g., People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 884; People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519, 523).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), rendered September 23, 1980, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On the present record, it cannot be concluded that the Trial Justice unduly or improperly interjected himself into the proceedings or displayed hostility or bias prejudicial to defendant. Indeed, some of the actions of the court complained of by defendant actually resulted in rulings favorable to him. Viewing the record as a whole and closely examining the specific claims raised by defendant, the record clearly indicates that the court maintained an unbiased and impartial demeanor at trial and, when it did inject itself into the fact-finding process, it did so in the proper exercise of its supervisory function (see, e.g., People v Jamison, 47 NY2d 882, 884; People v De Jesus, 42 NY2d 519, 523).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 632, 498 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riddick-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack