People v. Valentine

228 A.D.2d 708, 644 N.Y.2d 971, 644 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7365
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the defendant from presenting an alibi witness on the ground that the defendant did not provide adequate notice under CPL 250.20, since the defendant did not provide a sufficient explanation for his failure to comply (see, People v Delarosa, 215 AD2d 496; People v Toro, 198 AD2d 532).

In addition, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to be sentenced as a youthful offender (see, People v Williams, 124 AD2d 615).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Valentine, 228 A.D.2d 708, 644 N.Y.2d 971, 644 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 708 (People v. Valentine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Bonner
287 A.D.2d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)