From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ecock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

November 10, 1986

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


Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant's claims of error with respect to the court's justification charge and supplemental charge are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05; People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 471), and are, in any event, without merit (see, People v Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131-132). Any prejudice arising from the single instance of improper questioning by the prosecutor was, in this instance, negated by the court's prompt curative instruction (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v Heppard, 121 A.D.2d 466; People v Davis, 108 A.D.2d 924).

Finally, the sentence and amended sentence imposed evince neither an abuse of discretion nor a failure to observe sentencing principles on the part of the sentencing Judge (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86-87). Lazer, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ecock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 1986
124 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Ecock

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWARD ECOCK, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1986

Citations

124 A.D.2d 672 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Norwood

Since no timely objection was made to the court's charge, and since defense counsel did not request the court…

People v. Douglas

Since no objection was made to the charge provided, this issue has not been preserved for our review (CPL…