From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued September 30, 1999

November 8, 1999

Darlene D. Harris, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg, Tammy J. Smiley, and Leigh Neren of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.), rendered June 3, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly summarily denied the defendant's oral motion to set aside the jury's verdict of guilt on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since the defendant failed to comply with the requirements that the motion be in writing, upon reasonable notice, and supported by sworn allegations of fact (see, CPL 330.30[3], 330.40[2] [a]). Additionally, the defendant failed to establish that the evidence "could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial" ( CPL 330.30[3]; see,People v. Salemi, 309 N.Y. 208, cert denied 350 U.S. 950; People v. Rivera, 118 A.D.2d 877 ). Finally, the newly-discovered evidence alleged by the defendant, a blood-stained tee-shirt, would not have contradicted the People's witnesses' testimony that he sustained trauma to his nose (see, People v. Coleman, 142 A.D.2d 586 ).

The trial court also properly denied the defendant's objection to testimony concerning statements that he allegedly made at the time of or immediately preceding the crimes charged (see, CPL 710.30;People v. Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d 289 ; People v. Copes, 200 A.D.2d 680 ;People v. Wells, 133 A.D.2d 385 ; People v. Mayi, 198 A.D.2d 444 ; People v. Clark, 198 A.D.2d 46 ; People v. Holloway, 77 A.D.2d 122 ; cf., People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903 ).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, Penal Law § 205.30; cf., People v. Brown, 256 A.D.2d 414 ).

JOY, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Fisher

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. MARK FISHER, appellant. (Ind. No. 98614)

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
699 N.Y.S.2d 58

Citing Cases

People v. Sosa

There is no question as to the voluntariness of the defendant's statements, however, as they constitute res…

People v. McCullough

In order to be considered newly discovered and to justify interference with the verdict, the evidence must be…