People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smith

268 A.D.2d 447, 701 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 447 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 268 A.D.2d 447, 701 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), rendered June 12, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and unlawful possession of a radio device, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[448]*448Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in sua sponte dismissing a prospective juror since the juror’s responses to the court’s own questions revealed that he was unqualified to serve (see, People v Zamora, 243 AD2d 746; People v Mitchell, 224 AD2d 316).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Stewart, 81 NY2d 877) and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, 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 (LaTorella, J.), rendered June 12, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and unlawful possession of a radio device, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[448]*448Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in sua sponte dismissing a prospective juror since the juror’s responses to the court’s own questions revealed that he was unqualified to serve (see, People v Zamora, 243 AD2d 746; People v Mitchell, 224 AD2d 316).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Stewart, 81 NY2d 877) and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 447, 701 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack