People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smith

4 A.D.3d 378, 770 N.Y.S.2d 876

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 378 (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, 4 A.D.3d 378, 770 N.Y.S.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 26, 2001, [379]*379convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing the jury’s request for a readback of the defense counsel’s summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 474 [1991]; People v Dixon, 277 AD2d 65 [2000]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit since the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing the request (see People v Dixon, supra; People v McClary, 197 AD2d 640 [1993]). Prudenti, PJ., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, 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 (Latella, J.), rendered February 26, 2001, [379]*379convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing the jury’s request for a readback of the defense counsel’s summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 474 [1991]; People v Dixon, 277 AD2d 65 [2000]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit since the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing the request (see People v Dixon, supra; People v McClary, 197 AD2d 640 [1993]). Prudenti, PJ., Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 378, 770 N.Y.S.2d 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack