People v. Troy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Troy

213 A.D.2d 1035, 625 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1035 (People v. Troy) 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. Troy, 213 A.D.2d 1035, 625 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contentions of defendant that the indictment was improperly consolidated for trial with the indictment against the codefendant (see, CPL 200.40 [2]; see, People v Troy, 209 AD2d 943; see also, People v Griffin, 137 AD2d 558, 559, lv denied 70 NY2d 1006) and that County Court abused its discretion in denying her request for additional peremptory challenges (see, CPL 270.25 [2] [b]; [3]). The court gave prompt instructions to the jury that cured any error in the admission of testimony from a prosecution witness regarding the reason defendant was terminated from a specific employment situation. Additionally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Finally, we have considered the remaining contention of defendant and conclude that it is meritless. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J.—Grand Larceny, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contentions of defendant that the indictment was improperly consolidated for trial with the indictment against the codefendant (see, CPL 200.40 [2]; see, People v Troy, 209 AD2d 943; see also, People v Griffin, 137 AD2d 558, 559, lv denied 70 NY2d 1006) and that County Court abused its discretion in denying her request for additional peremptory challenges (see, CPL 270.25 [2] [b]; [3]). The court gave prompt instructions to the jury that cured any error in the admission of testimony from a prosecution witness regarding the reason defendant was terminated from a specific employment situation. Additionally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Finally, we have considered the remaining contention of defendant and conclude that it is meritless. (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J.—Grand Larceny, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1035, 625 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-troy-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack