From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Aldridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 17, 1998

Appeal from the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The determination as to whether to reopen a case for further testimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, People v. Ventura, 35 N.Y.2d 654; People v. Saddler, 219 A.D.2d 796; People v. Fama, 212 A.D.2d 542). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion.

To the limited extent that the defendant's remaining contentions are preserved for appellate review, they are without merit.

Joy, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Aldridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Aldridge

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALDRIDGE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 475

Citing Cases

People v. Zamfino

"[T]he determination as to whether to reopen a case for further testimony rests within the sound discretion…

People v. McCloud

Because the defendant waited until both sides had rested to request his charge, the request was untimely and…