7 N.Y.3d at 882 OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. During his preliminary instructions to the jury, the trial judge…5 citing cases
- People v. Clark, 2025 NY Slip Op 02102 (N.Y. 2025).published Defendant failed to preserve his remaining challenges to the jury instruction for our review ( see People v Harper , 7 NY3d 882, 882-883 [2006]).
- People v. Clark, 43 N.Y.3d 1052 (N.Y. 2025).publishedDefendant failed to preserve his remaining challenges to the jury instruction for our review ( see People v Harper , 7 NY3d 882, 882-883 [2006]).
- People v. Ramirez, 2024 NY Slip Op 00390 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2024).publishedPeople v Harper , 7 NY3d 882, 882-883 [2006] ["During his preliminary instructions to the jury, the trial judge outlined the elements of each of the . . . counts with which the defendant was charged.
- People v. Ciccone, 90 A.D.3d 1141 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011).publishedAlso, any error that County Court may have committed in regard to this testimony was harmless, especially when considered in light of its instruction to the jury that this evidence “was offered solely for [the jury’s] consideration on the…
- People v. Cushner, 46 A.D.3d 1121 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedWe will not address defendant’s unpreserved arguments that County Court’s preliminary instructions and admonitions were insufficient (see People v Harper, 7 NY3d 882, 882-883 [2006]; People v Schwing, 9 AD3d 685, 686 [2004], lv denied 3 NY…
7 N.Y.3d at 883 to object to these instructions, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v Brown, 7 NY3d 880 [2006] [decided today]). Defendant’s challenge to…1 citing case
- People v. Heidgen, 3 N.E.3d 657 (N.Y. 2013).publishedThis finding was undisturbed by the Appellate Division and there is support in the record for the determination (see People v Harper, 7 NY3d 882, 883 [2006]). 7 Defendant also maintains that the police should have obtained a warrant before…
v.
Allen Harper
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
During his preliminary instructions to the jury, the trial judge outlined the elements of each of the three robbery counts with which the defendant was charged. Because defendant failed[*883] to object to these instructions, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v Brown, 7 NY3d 880 [2006] [decided today]).
Defendant’s challenge to the hearing court’s determination involves a mixed question of law and fact and our review is therefore limited to whether there is record support for the determinations of the courts below. Because the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress without disturbing the court’s finding of abandonment, and there is record evidence that would support that determination, we are bound by the suppression court’s finding (see People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 193-194 [1992]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.