People v. Sweredoski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sweredoski

64 A.D.2d 1021, 409 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13039

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 1021 (People v. Sweredoski) 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. Sweredoski, 64 A.D.2d 1021, 409 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was not provided with notice of the People’s intention to introduce at trial statements made by defendant to a police officer, as required by CPL 710.30. The People concede that under the circumstances of this case a new trial is warranted. Although no objection was made to the offer of these statements at trial, we find upon a review of the record that the use of these statements did not constitute harmless error and that such a reversal is required in the interests of justice (CPL 710.30). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court—burglary, second degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was not provided with notice of the People’s intention to introduce at trial statements made by defendant to a police officer, as required by CPL 710.30. The People concede that under the circumstances of this case a new trial is warranted. Although no objection was made to the offer of these statements at trial, we find upon a review of the record that the use of these statements did not constitute harmless error and that such a reversal is required in the interests of justice (CPL 710.30). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court—burglary, second degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 1021, 409 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sweredoski-nyappdiv-1978.