People v. Rodney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodney

156 A.D.2d 732, 549 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16526

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

DecidedDecember 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 732 (People v. Rodney) 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. Rodney, 156 A.D.2d 732, 549 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), [733]*733rendered June 24, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that reversal is warranted by reason of the prosecutor’s misconduct is without merit. Although the prosecutor’s conduct was not exemplary, under the circumstances of this case it did not deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial (cf., People v Alicea, 37 NY2d 601).

Also without merit is the defendant’s contention that the sentencing court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing a mandatory surcharge upon him, as the defendant failed to establish that the payment of such a surcharge would work an unreasonable hardship on him or his immediate family (see, CPL 420.35; People v Williams, 131 AD2d 525). If, at the conclusion of his imprisonment, the defendant finds himself unable to pay the surcharge, he may move at that time for a waiver thereof (see, CPL 420.35, 420.10 [5]; People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Williams, supra).

The remaining contention raised by the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, 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 (Grajales, J.), [733]*733rendered June 24, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that reversal is warranted by reason of the prosecutor’s misconduct is without merit. Although the prosecutor’s conduct was not exemplary, under the circumstances of this case it did not deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial (cf., People v Alicea, 37 NY2d 601).

Also without merit is the defendant’s contention that the sentencing court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing a mandatory surcharge upon him, as the defendant failed to establish that the payment of such a surcharge would work an unreasonable hardship on him or his immediate family (see, CPL 420.35; People v Williams, 131 AD2d 525). If, at the conclusion of his imprisonment, the defendant finds himself unable to pay the surcharge, he may move at that time for a waiver thereof (see, CPL 420.35, 420.10 [5]; People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Williams, supra).

The remaining contention raised by the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 732, 549 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodney-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack