People v. Valentine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valentine

271 A.D.2d 245, 706 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3883

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

DecidedApril 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 245 (People v. Valentine) 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. Valentine, 271 A.D.2d 245, 706 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered April 15, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Although, in an in limine application, defendant .objected to prospective testimony that he chose his own position in his lineup and that his attorney was present, defendant abandoned this issue after the court reserved decision but made no express or implied ruling (see, People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027; People v Rivera, 257 AD2d 425, lv denied 93 NY2d 901). Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged testimony was admissible because the fairness of the lineup was in issue (People v Foulks, 143 AD2d 1038, lv denied 73 NY2d 855).

Defendant has failed to preserve his present challenges to comments by the prosecutor during summation (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summa[246]*246tion did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered April 15, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Although, in an in limine application, defendant .objected to prospective testimony that he chose his own position in his lineup and that his attorney was present, defendant abandoned this issue after the court reserved decision but made no express or implied ruling (see, People v Graves, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027; People v Rivera, 257 AD2d 425, lv denied 93 NY2d 901). Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged testimony was admissible because the fairness of the lineup was in issue (People v Foulks, 143 AD2d 1038, lv denied 73 NY2d 855).

Defendant has failed to preserve his present challenges to comments by the prosecutor during summation (see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summa[246]*246tion did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 245, 706 N.Y.S.2d 331, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valentine-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack