From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Farr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1999
262 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted May 20, 1999

June 28, 1999

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered June 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Arza Rayches Feldman, Roslyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Victor Barall, and Phyllis Mintz of counsel), for respondent.

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is not a concurrent inclusory count of either the conviction of murder in the second degree or attempted assault in the first degree ( see, People v. Pons, 68 N.Y.2d 264; People v. Almadovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 130; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427; People v. Perez, 45 N.Y.2d 204; People v. Mitchell, 216 A.D.2d 863; People v. Laboy, 208 A.D.2d 954; People v. Lee, 196 A.D.2d 509; People v. Sykes, 194 A.D.2d 502; People v. McGriff, 123 A.D.2d 646; People v. Davis, 95 A.D.2d 837).

The trial court properly denied the defendant's request for a missing witness charge, since the record demonstrates that the witnesses in question were not knowledgeable about any material issue ( see, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532; People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424).

The defendant's claim that his case was unduly prejudiced when the Trial Judge permitted the victim's wife to testify while her child was seated on her lap, is equally without merit ( see, People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 292; People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44; People v. Caballero, 242 A.D.2d 337; People v. Caban, 224 A.D.2d 705; People v. Hayden, 221 A.D.2d 367, 368; People v. Robinson, 137 A.D.2d 564).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Farr

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1999
262 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Farr

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. JAMES FARR, appellant. (Ind. No. 11860/96)

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 186

Citing Cases

PEOPLE v. FARR

The three prior motions submitted by defendant were all denied. The defendant previously filed an appeal with…

People v. Farr

September 24, 2001. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…