People v. Vanable

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vanable

205 A.D.2d 376, 613 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319

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

DecidedJune 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 376 (People v. Vanable) 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. Vanable, 205 A.D.2d 376, 613 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J.), rendered November 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

No objection was taken to the statement by the People’s witness that defendant stated "you didn’t see me”. In any [377]*377event, defendant was not prejudiced thereby in light of the strong identification testimony by the victim who had known him prior to the incident and knew where he lived (People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584).

The claims concerning the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for review as a matter of law, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find them not to warrant reversal. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irene Duffy, J.), rendered November 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

No objection was taken to the statement by the People’s witness that defendant stated "you didn’t see me”. In any [377]*377event, defendant was not prejudiced thereby in light of the strong identification testimony by the victim who had known him prior to the incident and knew where he lived (People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584).

The claims concerning the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for review as a matter of law, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find them not to warrant reversal. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 376, 613 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vanable-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack