People v. Ruffell

55 A.D.3d 1271, 864 N.Y.S.2d 347
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 3, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 1271 (People v. Ruffell) 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. Ruffell, 55 A.D.3d 1271, 864 N.Y.S.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered June 5, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal [1272]*1272Law § 120.05 [2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (§ 265.01 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in requiring defendant to provide a DNA sample. Although the People requested the DNA sample after the 45-day statutory period for discovery had elapsed (see CPL 240.90 [1]), we conclude under the circumstances of this case that the motion was properly granted for “good cause shown” before the commencement of the trial (id.). The People established that the DNA test results from the knife used to stab the victim would result in material and relevant evidence (see People v Shields, 155 AD2d 978 [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 818 [1990]), and “the delay itself did not cause defendant any prejudice” (People v Lewis, 44 AD3d 422, 422-423 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]; see also People v Jenkins, 98 NY2d 280 [2002]). We also reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Smith
2019 NY Slip Op 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Roland
2018 NY Slip Op 8694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Young
2018 NY Slip Op 2673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Vieweg
2017 NY Slip Op 8212 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Sanon
53 Misc. 3d 1008 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
People v. Beckham
142 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Matos
37 Misc. 3d 252 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.3d 1271, 864 N.Y.S.2d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruffell-nyappdiv-2008.