People v. Taitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taitt

146 A.D.2d 658, 536 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 459

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

DecidedJanuary 17, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 A.D.2d 658 (People v. Taitt) 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. Taitt, 146 A.D.2d 658, 536 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered October 16, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s further contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to substitute new counsel in place of his assigned counsel on the eve of trial is without merit (see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199). The defendant’s dissatisfaction with his assigned counsel was based upon his perception that counsel had no confidence in his case, and he further alleged in a conclusory manner that counsel had not attempted to assist him until the eve of trial. These allegations do not rise to the level of good cause for substitution, and we note that the defendant did not express any dissatisfaction with counsel until the eve of trial (see, People v Medina, supra; McKee v Harris, 649 F2d 927).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Eiber, 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 (Broomer, J.), rendered October 16, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s further contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to substitute new counsel in place of his assigned counsel on the eve of trial is without merit (see, People v Medina, 44 NY2d 199). The defendant’s dissatisfaction with his assigned counsel was based upon his perception that counsel had no confidence in his case, and he further alleged in a conclusory manner that counsel had not attempted to assist him until the eve of trial. These allegations do not rise to the level of good cause for substitution, and we note that the defendant did not express any dissatisfaction with counsel until the eve of trial (see, People v Medina, supra; McKee v Harris, 649 F2d 927).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 658, 536 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taitt-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack