People v. Suarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Suarez

99 A.D.2d 473, 470 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16654

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 473 (People v. Suarez) 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. Suarez, 99 A.D.2d 473, 470 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), entered October 7,1982, which granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict rendered August 4,1982, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, verdict reinstated and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings. Defendant’s claim that the jury’s verdict was repugnant was waived when defense counsel failed to complain of the alleged inconsistency until after the discharge of the jury, at which point it was no longer possible to remedy the defect, if any, by resubmission to the jury (People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746; People v Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048, 1050; People v Gupta, 86 AD2d 960, 961). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), entered October 7,1982, which granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict rendered August 4,1982, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, verdict reinstated and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings. Defendant’s claim that the jury’s verdict was repugnant was waived when defense counsel failed to complain of the alleged inconsistency until after the discharge of the jury, at which point it was no longer possible to remedy the defect, if any, by resubmission to the jury (People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746; People v Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048, 1050; People v Gupta, 86 AD2d 960, 961). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 473, 470 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-suarez-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack