From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Floyd Lindsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 2010
74 A.D.3d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-01223.

June 8, 2010.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty J.), rendered February 2, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Richard J. Barbuto, Babylon, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Laurie K. Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Florio and Sgroi, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's oral motion to reinspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment, since the motion was made in clear violation of CPL 210.45 (1) ( see People v Rodriguez, 244 AD2d 364; People v Johnson, 134 AD2d 284, 285; 32A NY Jur 2d, Criminal Law: Procedure § 1574).

Since the defendant made only an oral motion to dismiss count two of the indictment at the opening of the trial without showing any "good cause" for the delay (CPL 255.20), his contention that the count is duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Booker, 63 AD3d 750, 751), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

The Supreme Court's ruling pursuant to People v Sandoval ( 34 NY2d 371) was a provident exercise of discretion ( see People v Smith, 138 AD2d 759). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his right to confrontation ( see People v Salazar, 1 AD3d 387; People v Brock, 238 AD2d 347).

The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the alleged prosecutorial misconduct on summation, the Supreme Court's failure to give an expanded identification charge, and his adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Floyd Lindsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 8, 2010
74 A.D.3d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Floyd Lindsey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FLOYD LINDSEY…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5025
901 N.Y.S.2d 869
939 N.E.2d 814

Citing Cases

People v. Wisdom

Initially, we find that, contrary to the People's contention, the defendant properly preserved this claim for…

People v. Tamberlane

Furthermore, upon the exercise of this court's factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson,…