People v. Zborowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zborowski

249 A.D.2d 344, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3629

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 344 (People v. Zborowski) 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. Zborowski, 249 A.D.2d 344, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lebowitz, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), criminal trespass in the second degree, petit larceny, possession of burglars tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the trial court did not preclude him from putting on a defense. The [345]*345court correctly stated that the proposed testimony would not be relevant absent a proper foundation (see, People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777; People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738, 741). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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, Kings County (Lebowitz, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts), criminal trespass in the second degree, petit larceny, possession of burglars tools, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the trial court did not preclude him from putting on a defense. The [345]*345court correctly stated that the proposed testimony would not be relevant absent a proper foundation (see, People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777; People v Rodriguez, 64 NY2d 738, 741). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 344, 671 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zborowski-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack