From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 2002
291 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-09528

Argued November 27, 2001.

February 19, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered September 14, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Kristen Marcelle of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court's conduct constituted reversible error is without merit. While some of the trial court's behavior and comments, specifically with respect to its treatment of defense counsel, are not beyond criticism, when viewed in its entirety, the trial court's conduct fell within the bounds of judicial discretion in controlling the proceedings before it and did not constitute reversible error (see, People v. Sevencan, 258 A.D.2d 485; People v. Serrano, 253 A.D.2d 531; People v. Riddick, 251 A.D.2d 517).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SMITH, J.P., FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 2002
291 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MARK D. BROWN, appellant

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

Date published: Feb 19, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

People v. Pittam

Contrary to the defendant's contention, none of the court's remarks during the trial prevented the jury from…