People v. Rodari

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodari

2 A.D.3d 756, 768 N.Y.S.2d 615

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 756 (People v. Rodari) 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. Rodari, 2 A.D.3d 756, 768 N.Y.S.2d 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered January 22, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review as he either did not object to the remarks, his objection was sustained without a request for a curative instruction, or his objection was sustained and, upon the court’s issuance of a curative instruction, he did not request a further instruction or request a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; [757]*757People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538 [1997]). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, 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, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered January 22, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review as he either did not object to the remarks, his objection was sustained without a request for a curative instruction, or his objection was sustained and, upon the court’s issuance of a curative instruction, he did not request a further instruction or request a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; [757]*757People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; People v Persaud, 237 AD2d 538 [1997]). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 756, 768 N.Y.S.2d 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodari-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack