People v. Robinson

269 A.D.2d 612, 703 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2308
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Robinson. Read the opinion of the Court — 239 A.D.2d 258

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), rendered June 12, 1997, convicting him of [613]*613robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the identification testimony of the complaining witness should have been precluded because the People failed to provide timely notice as required by CPL 710.30 (1) (b). However, since the prosecutor provided good cause for the failure to provide timely notice, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion (see, CPL 710.30 [2]). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Robinson, 269 A.D.2d 612, 703 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

269 A.D.2d 612 (People v. Robinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.