People v. Zivkovich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zivkovich

237 A.D.2d 473, 656 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered August 21, 1995, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, as a felony, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and operating a motor vehicle with improper plates, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments on summation deprived him of a fair trial are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). Moreover, the court did not err in giving certain curative instructions to the jury concerning testimony erroneously mentioned by the prosecutor in his summation.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered August 21, 1995, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, as a felony, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, leaving the scene of an accident without reporting, and operating a motor vehicle with improper plates, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s comments on summation deprived him of a fair trial are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). Moreover, the court did not err in giving certain curative instructions to the jury concerning testimony erroneously mentioned by the prosecutor in his summation.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

People v. Zivkovich, 237 A.D.2d 473, 656 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 473 (People v. Zivkovich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related