People v. Bruckman
| Decision Date | 29 March 1979 |
| Citation | 416 N.Y.S.2d 585,46 N.Y.2d 1020,389 N.E.2d 1105 |
| Parties | , 389 N.E.2d 1105 The PEOPLE of the State of New York Respondent, v. James David BRUCKMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 63 A.D.2d 865, 405 N.Y.S.2d 875, should be affirmed.
Inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the verdict as returned by the jury, his claim of repugnancy was not preserved for appellate review. (See People v. Parks, 59 A.D.2d 543, 544, 397 N.Y.S.2d 128; People v. Incherchera, 56 A.D.2d 852, 392 N.Y.S.2d 62; cf. Matter of Oliver v. Justices of N. Y. Supreme Ct. of N. Y. County, 36 N.Y.2d 53, 58, 364 N.Y.S.2d 874, 324 N.E.2d 348; People v. Quilles, 48 A.D.2d 933, 369 N.Y.S. 535.)
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
10 cases
-
People v. Hamilton
...repugnant is similarly unavailing ( see, People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 442 N.Y.S.2d 488, 425 N.E.2d 876; People v. Bruckman, 46 N.Y.2d 1020, 416 N.Y.S.2d 585, 389 N.E.2d 1105, rearg. dismissed 56 N.Y.2d 710, 451 N.Y.S.2d 734, 436 N.E.2d 1336; 56 N.Y.2d 805, 452 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 437 N.E.2d ......
-
People v. McDavis
...to preserve the issue for review (see People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 442 N.Y.S.2d 488, 425 N.E.2d 876; People v. Bruckman, 46 N.Y.2d 1020, 416 N.Y.S.2d 585, 389 N.E.2d 1105). Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be Judgment unanimously affirmed. HANCOCK, J.P., and CALLAHAN, DENM......
-
People v. Morris
...could be reconsidered by the jury (see People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 442 N.Y.S.2d 488, 425 N.E.2d 876; People v. Bruckman, 46 N.Y.2d 1020, 416 N.Y.S.2d 585, 389 N.E.2d 1105). However, a valid argument could be made that by requesting a justification charge with respect to the assault and......
-
People v. Sanchez
...preserve the issue for appellate review (People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 442 N.Y.S.2d 488, 425 N.E.2d 876; People v. Bruckman, 46 N.Y.2d 1020, 416 N.Y.S.2d 585, 389 N.E.2d 1105). Certainly a failure to make such timely objection would foreclose review in the Court of Appeals (People v. Sat......
Request a trial to view additional results