People v. Rosero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosero

269 A.D.2d 472, 702 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1349

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 472 (People v. Rosero) 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. Rosero, 269 A.D.2d 472, 702 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered February 23, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the defendant sought to introduce certain statements by his sister, which he claimed were exculpatory, as statements against her penal interest. However, the court properly exercised its discretion in excluding such statements as unreliable (see, People v Shortridge, 65 NY2d 309; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154; People v Stevens, 212 AD2d 746).

[473]*473The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered February 23, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, the defendant sought to introduce certain statements by his sister, which he claimed were exculpatory, as statements against her penal interest. However, the court properly exercised its discretion in excluding such statements as unreliable (see, People v Shortridge, 65 NY2d 309; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154; People v Stevens, 212 AD2d 746).

[473]*473The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 472, 702 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosero-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack