People v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Webster

247 A.D.2d 939, 668 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1361

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 939 (People v. Webster) 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. Webster, 247 A.D.2d 939, 668 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Motion for leave to appeal and for consolidation denied. Memorandum: We have reviewed defendant’s CPL 460.15 application for leave to appeal and conclude that there are no questions of law or fact that ought to be reviewed by the Court. The contentions of defendant that he was denied a prompt verdict and his right to an “effective summation” are a matter of record that could be raised on direct appeal (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [b]). Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court improperly held a private readback of trial testimony is not supported by sufficient law or facts. Similarly, defendant has failed to substantiate his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we are denying that part of defendant’s motion for leave to appeal, that part of defendant’s motion for consolidation is moot.

Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Motion for leave to appeal and for consolidation denied. Memorandum: We have reviewed defendant’s CPL 460.15 application for leave to appeal and conclude that there are no questions of law or fact that ought to be reviewed by the Court. The contentions of defendant that he was denied a prompt verdict and his right to an “effective summation” are a matter of record that could be raised on direct appeal (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [b]). Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court improperly held a private readback of trial testimony is not supported by sufficient law or facts. Similarly, defendant has failed to substantiate his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we are denying that part of defendant’s motion for leave to appeal, that part of defendant’s motion for consolidation is moot.

Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 939, 668 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-webster-nyappdiv-1998.