From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Boone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 1993
194 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 15, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred H. Kleiman, J.).


Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt of the crime charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The jury's determinations of credibility and fact, supported by the record, will not be disturbed by this Court (People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122).

We note that defendant's claim on appeal that the trial court "refused" to hold a hearing regarding the People's application for a limited protective order in connection with certain civilian witnesses is belied by the record, and his related claims of error are unpreserved by appropriate and timely objection for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). In any event, we find that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretionary power to permit delayed discovery of the names and/or redact the addresses of witnesses who might face intimidation (People v. Guzman, 176 A.D.2d 561, 562, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 920).

We have considered defendant's additional claims of error and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Boone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 15, 1993
194 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Boone

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEVIN BOONE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 540

Citing Cases

People v. Morales

Defendant failed to preserve by appropriate objection his current claim that protective orders in connection…