From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 2001
282 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

April 9, 2001.

April 30, 2001.

John R. Howard, New Rochelle, N.Y., for appellant.

Jeanine Pirro, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Egan, J.), rendered November 13, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the People were required to provide him with notice of the identification testimony of the officers who witnessed the stabbing is without merit. There was no previous identification of the defendant and, thus, no such notice was required (see, CPL 710.30; People v. Trammel, 84 N.Y.2d 584; People v. Rohan, 214 A.D.2d 755).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 30, 2001
282 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Romano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ANTHONY ROMANO, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 30, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 764 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 348

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

          The defendant's contention that the People were required to provide him with notice of the…

People v. Williams

Since there was no previous identification of the defendant by the victim, no such notice was required ( see…