People v. Zhi Qiang Li

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zhi Qiang Li

275 A.D.2d 803, 714 N.Y.S.2d 223, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9458

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 803 (People v. Zhi Qiang Li) 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. Zhi Qiang Li, 275 A.D.2d 803, 714 N.Y.S.2d 223, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered June 16, 1997, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not object to the summation remarks made by the prosecutor that he now claims were improper. Accordingly, his arguments regarding those comments are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the challenged comments were either fair comment on the evidence, or a fair response to the defense summation, which extensively attacked the complainants’ credibility (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Rosa, 204 AD2d 744; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, 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 (Fisher, J.), rendered June 16, 1997, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not object to the summation remarks made by the prosecutor that he now claims were improper. Accordingly, his arguments regarding those comments are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the challenged comments were either fair comment on the evidence, or a fair response to the defense summation, which extensively attacked the complainants’ credibility (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Rosa, 204 AD2d 744; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 803, 714 N.Y.S.2d 223, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zhi-qiang-li-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack