People v. Saunders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Saunders

244 A.D.2d 580, 665 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11938

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 24, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), rendered May 13, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon á jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3). The defendant failed to show that the allegedly newly discovered evidence could not have been produced at the trial by the exercise of due diligence, or that the evidence, if presented to the jury, would have resulted in a different verdict (see, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950). Furthermore, since the court was able to make its determination on the basis of the motion papers, it did not err in failing to hold a hearing (see, CPL 330.40 [2] [c], [e] [ii]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 (Friedman, J.), rendered May 13, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon á jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3). The defendant failed to show that the allegedly newly discovered evidence could not have been produced at the trial by the exercise of due diligence, or that the evidence, if presented to the jury, would have resulted in a different verdict (see, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950). Furthermore, since the court was able to make its determination on the basis of the motion papers, it did not err in failing to hold a hearing (see, CPL 330.40 [2] [c], [e] [ii]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

People v. Saunders, 244 A.D.2d 580, 665 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

244 A.D.2d 580 (People v. Saunders) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related