People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wright

126 A.D.2d 690, 511 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41832

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 690 (People v. Wright) 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. Wright, 126 A.D.2d 690, 511 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), rendered November 11, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record reveals that he was afforded effective assistance of counsel (see, e.g., People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Carter, 114 AD2d 420). We find, moreover, that the People discharged their obligation to produce all discoverable material requested by the defen[691]*691dant’s counsel and the defendant has not established otherwise (cf. People v Caban, 118 AD2d 957, 959). Although certain documents produced in response to the defendant’s subpoena were apparently delivered to the County Clerk’s office instead of the Trial Part, the record reveals that counsel was aware of their location but nevertheless chose to call the witness in question without first examining the materials produced or requesting the court’s assistance in obtaining them (cf. People v Donald, 107 AD2d 818, 819-820). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), rendered November 11, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record reveals that he was afforded effective assistance of counsel (see, e.g., People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Carter, 114 AD2d 420). We find, moreover, that the People discharged their obligation to produce all discoverable material requested by the defen[691]*691dant’s counsel and the defendant has not established otherwise (cf. People v Caban, 118 AD2d 957, 959). Although certain documents produced in response to the defendant’s subpoena were apparently delivered to the County Clerk’s office instead of the Trial Part, the record reveals that counsel was aware of their location but nevertheless chose to call the witness in question without first examining the materials produced or requesting the court’s assistance in obtaining them (cf. People v Donald, 107 AD2d 818, 819-820). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 690, 511 N.Y.S.2d 115, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wright-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack