People v. Candelario
| Decision Date | 29 November 1993 |
| Citation | 605 N.Y.S.2d 931,198 A.D.2d 512 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Juan CANDELARIO, a/k/a Juan Candelaria, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York City, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Victor Barall, and Quentin Moore, of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered May 2, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the police officers' testimony as to the substance of a radio run was inadmissible is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 455 N.Y.S.2d 593, 441 N.E.2d 1111). In any event, this claim is without merit because the substance of the radio run was introduced only as background evidence to explain why the police officers arrived at the scene and ran after the defendant (see, People v. Casanova, 160 A.D.2d 394, 554 N.Y.S.2d 21).
Nor was the defendant deprived of a fair trial by the fact that several of the prosecution's witnesses referred to him by his "street" names. Identification was an issue and those were the names by which the witnesses knew the defendant (see, People v. Louis, 192 A.D.2d 558, 596 N.Y.S.2d 104).
We also reject the defendant's contention that his sentence was unduly harsh and excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rashid, 108145
...1123, 1125–1126, 931 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2011], lvs denied 20 N.Y.3d 1099, 965 N.Y.S.2d 795, 988 N.E.2d 533 [2013]; People v. Candelario , 198 A.D.2d 512, 513, 605 N.Y.S.2d 931 [1993], lvs denied 83 N.Y.2d 803, 611 N.Y.S.2d 139, 633 N.E.2d 494 [1994] ). Defendant's remaining contentions may be di......
-
People v. Smith
...26 A.D.3d 764, 765, 810 N.Y.S.2d 268 [2006], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 847, 816 N.Y.S.2d 753, 849 N.E.2d 976 [2006] ; People v. Candelario, 198 A.D.2d 512, 513, 605 N.Y.S.2d 931 [1993], lvs denied 83 N.Y.2d 803, 965, 611 N.Y.S.2d 139, 633 N.E.2d 494 [1994] ). Regarding defendant's challenge to Cou......
-
Ramon v. Corporate City of N.Y.
...was executed on May 2, 1989, most of his causes of action accrued in 1989 at the latest. (R&R at 10-12 (citing People v. Candelario, 198 A.D.2d 512 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1993) (affirming plaintiff's 1989 judgment of conviction and rejecting plaintiff's contentions challenging his convict......
-
Candelaria v. Senkowski
...dated November 29, 1993, the appellate division unanimously affirmed the petitioner's judgment of conviction. People v. Candelaria, 198 A.D.2d 512, 605 N.Y.S.2d 931 (1993). Petitioner's application for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was subsequently denied by certificate d......