People v. Volious

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Volious

244 A.D.2d 871, 668 N.Y.S.2d 123

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 871 (People v. Volious) 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. Volious, 244 A.D.2d 871, 668 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). We reject the [872]*872contention of defendant that the People failed to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114-115). In failing to raise the sufficiency of the instructions to the Grand Jury in his omnibus motion, defendant failed to preserve that issue for our review (see, People v Hill, 236 AD2d 799, lv denied 89 NY2d 1036; People v Moody, 220 AD2d 460). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]). We reject the [872]*872contention of defendant that the People failed to disprove his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114-115). In failing to raise the sufficiency of the instructions to the Grand Jury in his omnibus motion, defendant failed to preserve that issue for our review (see, People v Hill, 236 AD2d 799, lv denied 89 NY2d 1036; People v Moody, 220 AD2d 460). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 871, 668 N.Y.S.2d 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-volious-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack