People v. Tomback

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tomback

244 A.D.2d 586, 665 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11821

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 586 (People v. Tomback) 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. Tomback, 244 A.D.2d 586, 665 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gorges, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746; People v Sutherland, 166 AD2d 732). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury’s verdict was not repugnant as a matter of law since a verdict was rendered only as to one count (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 6). In addition, the defense of justification is inapplicable to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon (see, People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126; People v Cosby, 200 AD2d 682, 683). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 (Gorges, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746; People v Sutherland, 166 AD2d 732). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury’s verdict was not repugnant as a matter of law since a verdict was rendered only as to one count (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 6). In addition, the defense of justification is inapplicable to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon (see, People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264; People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126; People v Cosby, 200 AD2d 682, 683). Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 586, 665 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tomback-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack