People v. Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosenberg

34 A.D.2d 961, 313 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651

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

DecidedJune 1, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 961 (People v. Rosenberg) 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. Rosenberg, 34 A.D.2d 961, 313 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 15, 1969, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. In our opinion, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the Bruton error complained of contributed to his conviction, particularly in view of the extraordinarily thorough instruction to the jury by the Trial Judge that what the codefendant told the witness Manzione could not be considered against the other defendants (cf. People v. Baker, 26 N Y 2d 169, [962]*962174; People v. Pelow, 24 N Y 2d 161, 167; People v. Portelli, 15 N Y 2d 235, 238; People v. Kingston, 8 N Y 2d 384, 387). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 15, 1969, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. In our opinion, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there is no reasonable possibility that the Bruton error complained of contributed to his conviction, particularly in view of the extraordinarily thorough instruction to the jury by the Trial Judge that what the codefendant told the witness Manzione could not be considered against the other defendants (cf. People v. Baker, 26 N Y 2d 169, [962]*962174; People v. Pelow, 24 N Y 2d 161, 167; People v. Portelli, 15 N Y 2d 235, 238; People v. Kingston, 8 N Y 2d 384, 387). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 961, 313 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack