From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lumpkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 2007
39 A.D.3d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2005-02477.

April 10, 2007.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered March 1, 2005, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Katherine R. Schaefer of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, Steven L. Vollins, and Benjamin Mastaitis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention regarding the preliminary instructions given to the jury, and his contention that the trial court failed to admonish the jury not to discuss the case during an overnight recess ( see CPL 270.40, 310.10; People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, 771; People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 32; People v Taylor, 29 AD3d 713, 714; People v Robinson, 8 AD3d 502; People v Morton, 23 AD3d 411, 412), and we decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15 [a]; People v Giddens, 202 AD2d 976; People v Moore, 161 AD2d 733, 734; People v Morton, 23 AD3d 411, 412).


Summaries of

People v. Lumpkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 2007
39 A.D.3d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

People v. Lumpkin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH LUMPKIN…

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

Date published: Apr 10, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 3168
831 N.Y.S.2d 908

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court failed to properly…

People v. Martin

15; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view…