From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Palasciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 20, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By failing to oppose the People's request that the courtroom be closed during the testimony of certain undercover officers, the defendant waived his claim that the closure resulted in the denial of his right to a public trial (see, People v Scott, 134 A.D.2d 379; see also, People v Kersch, 135 A.D.2d 570).

The defendant's contention that he did not receive meaningful representation from his trial counsel is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed together and as of the time of representation, reveal that the defendant was provided with the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Palasciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1989
155 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Palasciano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAUL PALASCIANO…

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 673

Citing Cases

People v. Rivera

Thus, the defendant waived any right to a formal Sandoval determination and failed to preserve any issue of…