People v. Stuart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stuart

249 A.D.2d 954, 672 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 954 (People v. Stuart) 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. Stuart, 249 A.D.2d 954, 672 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by the failure of the People to produce the victim’s medical records until the day of trial. Any prejudice arising from the People’s delay was cured when County Court granted defendant a reasonable continuance (see, People v Cunningham, 189 AD2d 821, lv denied 81 NY2d 1071; People v Emery, 159 AD2d 992, 993, lv denied 76 NY2d 787). The proof of guilt is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Furthermore, defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Sheridan, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial by the failure of the People to produce the victim’s medical records until the day of trial. Any prejudice arising from the People’s delay was cured when County Court granted defendant a reasonable continuance (see, People v Cunningham, 189 AD2d 821, lv denied 81 NY2d 1071; People v Emery, 159 AD2d 992, 993, lv denied 76 NY2d 787). The proof of guilt is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Furthermore, defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Sheridan, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 954, 672 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stuart-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack