People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Romano

282 A.D.2d 764, 724 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4272

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

DecidedApril 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 764 (People v. Romano) 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. Romano, 282 A.D.2d 764, 724 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Egan, J.), rendered November 13, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People were required to provide him with notice of the identification testimony of the [765]*765officers who witnessed the stabbing is without merit. There was no previous identification of the defendant and, thus, no such notice was required (see, CPL 710.30; People v Trammel, 84 NY2d 584; People v Rohan, 214 AD2d 755).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Egan, J.), rendered November 13, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People were required to provide him with notice of the identification testimony of the [765]*765officers who witnessed the stabbing is without merit. There was no previous identification of the defendant and, thus, no such notice was required (see, CPL 710.30; People v Trammel, 84 NY2d 584; People v Rohan, 214 AD2d 755).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 764, 724 N.Y.S.2d 348, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romano-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack