People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shaw

205 A.D.2d 464, 615 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7030

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

DecidedJune 30, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Shaw) 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. Shaw, 205 A.D.2d 464, 615 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered April 22, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, and imposing a fine of $5,000, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the officers improperly searched his bag after his arrest (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. This fact based claim, raised by defendant for the first time on appeal, does not warrant reversal (see, People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, 1013).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered April 22, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, and imposing a fine of $5,000, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the officers improperly searched his bag after his arrest (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. This fact based claim, raised by defendant for the first time on appeal, does not warrant reversal (see, People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011, 1013).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 464, 615 N.Y.S.2d 989, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shaw-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack