People v. Spears

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spears

188 A.D.2d 669, 592 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14600

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Spears) 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. Spears, 188 A.D.2d 669, 592 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.), rendered December 7, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[670]*670The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the testimony of the police witnesses bolstered the complainant’s identification testimony in violation of People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471). Since the defense counsel did not object to the challenged testimony, the claimed error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McGill, 183 AD2d 730; People v Foster, 182 AD2d 636), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Lawrence, 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 (Savarese, J.), rendered December 7, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[670]*670The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the testimony of the police witnesses bolstered the complainant’s identification testimony in violation of People v Trowbridge (305 NY 471). Since the defense counsel did not object to the challenged testimony, the claimed error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McGill, 183 AD2d 730; People v Foster, 182 AD2d 636), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 669, 592 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spears-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack