People v. Simon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simon

178 A.D.2d 162

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 162 (People v. Simon) 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. Simon, 178 A.D.2d 162 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered July 27, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 and 330.40 without a hearing concerning certain comments the foreperson of the jury allegedly made to a court officer after the verdict was rendered. Since the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict was "based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice” (Snediker v County of Orange, 58 NY2d 647, 649; People v Rhodes, 92 AD2d 744, 745), and the moving papers were supported solely by hearsay allegations (see, e.g., People v Bellamy, 158 AD2d 525, 526; People v Fusillo, 94 AD2d 802), the motion was properly denied.

The defendant’s other contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, 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 (Grajales, J.), rendered July 27, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 and 330.40 without a hearing concerning certain comments the foreperson of the jury allegedly made to a court officer after the verdict was rendered. Since the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict was "based on little more than speculation as to the possibility of prejudice” (Snediker v County of Orange, 58 NY2d 647, 649; People v Rhodes, 92 AD2d 744, 745), and the moving papers were supported solely by hearsay allegations (see, e.g., People v Bellamy, 158 AD2d 525, 526; People v Fusillo, 94 AD2d 802), the motion was properly denied.

The defendant’s other contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simon-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack