People v. Scafidi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scafidi

219 A.D.2d 609, 631 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Scafidi) 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. Scafidi, 219 A.D.2d 609, 631 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered June 3, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under Indictment No. 7433/92, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 3, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Jones, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 13366/90.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the waiver of the defendant’s right to be present at side-bar conferences during jury selection was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 349-350, cert denied 423 US 999; People v Underwood, 201 AD2d 597).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by permitting a witness who had not previously identified the defendant to identify him in court. The defendant’s counsel cross-examined the witness and explored the weaknesses and suggestiveness of his in-court identification (see, People v Medina, 208 AD2d 771, 772; People v Bradley, 154 AD2d 609, 610).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or do not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered June 3, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree under Indictment No. 7433/92, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 3, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Jones, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 13366/90.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the waiver of the defendant’s right to be present at side-bar conferences during jury selection was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 349-350, cert denied 423 US 999; People v Underwood, 201 AD2d 597).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by permitting a witness who had not previously identified the defendant to identify him in court. The defendant’s counsel cross-examined the witness and explored the weaknesses and suggestiveness of his in-court identification (see, People v Medina, 208 AD2d 771, 772; People v Bradley, 154 AD2d 609, 610).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or do not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 609, 631 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scafidi-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack