People v. Tatulli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tatulli

33 A.D.3d 450, 823 N.Y.S.2d 15

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 450 (People v. Tatulli) 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. Tatulli, 33 A.D.3d 450, 823 N.Y.S.2d 15 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 12, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror, since the totality of his responses did not call into question his ability to be fair and to follow the court’s instructions (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001]). There is nothing to suggest that the panelist’s occupation and knowledge of bankruptcy law would have any impact on his ability to serve on a criminal case, and he never said anything that reached the level of requiring an expurgatory oath.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 12, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror, since the totality of his responses did not call into question his ability to be fair and to follow the court’s instructions (see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001]). There is nothing to suggest that the panelist’s occupation and knowledge of bankruptcy law would have any impact on his ability to serve on a criminal case, and he never said anything that reached the level of requiring an expurgatory oath.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 450, 823 N.Y.S.2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tatulli-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack