People v. Steedly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Steedly

205 A.D.2d 808, 614 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6660

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

DecidedJune 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 808 (People v. Steedly) 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. Steedly, 205 A.D.2d 808, 614 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kriendler, J.), rendered June 19, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant was not deprived of his right to be present during jury selection insofar as the selection in the present case occurred in May 1990, prior to the decisions in both People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247) and People v Sloan (79 NY2d 386, 392), which have been held to apply prospectively only (see, People v Mitchell, 80 NY2d 519; People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113; People v Hannigan, 193 AD2d 8).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy and Altman, 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 (Kriendler, J.), rendered June 19, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant was not deprived of his right to be present during jury selection insofar as the selection in the present case occurred in May 1990, prior to the decisions in both People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247) and People v Sloan (79 NY2d 386, 392), which have been held to apply prospectively only (see, People v Mitchell, 80 NY2d 519; People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113; People v Hannigan, 193 AD2d 8).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 808, 614 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steedly-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack