People v. Tesfay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tesfay

117 A.D.2d 1001, 499 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53243

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 1001 (People v. Tesfay) 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. Tesfay, 117 A.D.2d 1001, 499 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the unavailability of an interpreter to aid the defendant in testifying before the Grand Jury. The prosecution had presented sworn testimony that defendant was able to communicate in English, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court was justified in finding that it was not necessary to appoint an interpreter to protect defendant’s rights.

We have examined defendant’s other arguments and we find them to be without merit. Moreover, the assertion of prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for review as a matter of law. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, [1002]*1002Flynn, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly denied the motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the unavailability of an interpreter to aid the defendant in testifying before the Grand Jury. The prosecution had presented sworn testimony that defendant was able to communicate in English, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court was justified in finding that it was not necessary to appoint an interpreter to protect defendant’s rights.

We have examined defendant’s other arguments and we find them to be without merit. Moreover, the assertion of prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for review as a matter of law. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, [1002]*1002Flynn, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 1001, 499 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tesfay-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack