People v. Schenck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schenck

209 A.D.2d 453, 619 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11002

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 453 (People v. Schenck) 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. Schenck, 209 A.D.2d 453, 619 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered July 12, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s replacement of a sworn juror with an alternate juror is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the juror’s replacement at a time when the trial court could correct the claimed error (see, CPL 470.05; cf., People v Battle, 167 AD2d 190), and we decline to address the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, 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, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered July 12, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s replacement of a sworn juror with an alternate juror is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to object to the juror’s replacement at a time when the trial court could correct the claimed error (see, CPL 470.05; cf., People v Battle, 167 AD2d 190), and we decline to address the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Lawrence, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 453, 619 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schenck-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack