People v. Tarangelo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tarangelo

269 A.D.2d 163, 701 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1049

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 163 (People v. Tarangelo) 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. Tarangelo, 269 A.D.2d 163, 701 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered June 27, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation comments and the court’s charge improperly permitted the jury to consider a theory of unlawful “remaining” (see, People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 363) is unpreserved. Although at the precharge conference defendant briefly alluded (see, People v Borrello, 52 NY2d 952) to some dissatisfaction with the “remaining” theory, he clearly abandoned any protest and acquiesced in the references to “remaining” contained in the summation and charge. Accordingly, we find no preservation as required by CPL 470.05 (2) and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that reversal is not warranted because the Gaines error caused no prejudice to defendant given the trial evidence (see, People v Martinez, 173 AD2d 333, lv denied 78 NY2d 1013; People v Santana, 172 AD2d 299, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered June 27, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation comments and the court’s charge improperly permitted the jury to consider a theory of unlawful “remaining” (see, People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 363) is unpreserved. Although at the precharge conference defendant briefly alluded (see, People v Borrello, 52 NY2d 952) to some dissatisfaction with the “remaining” theory, he clearly abandoned any protest and acquiesced in the references to “remaining” contained in the summation and charge. Accordingly, we find no preservation as required by CPL 470.05 (2) and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that reversal is not warranted because the Gaines error caused no prejudice to defendant given the trial evidence (see, People v Martinez, 173 AD2d 333, lv denied 78 NY2d 1013; People v Santana, 172 AD2d 299, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 163, 701 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tarangelo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack