People v. Strong, 256 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Strong, 256 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The State v. Joseph Bowers (sc, 2022-06-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) The State v. Joseph Bowers
S.C. · 2022 · confidence medium
App. 1987) (same); Morris v. Christopher, 258 A.2d 172, 175 (Md. 1969) (same); People v. Strong, 683 N.Y.S.2d 275, 275 (App. Div. 1998) (same); State v. Foss, 134 A. 636, 637 (Vt. 1926) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Devers
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the County Court shifted the burden of proof by improperly instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of duress is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ten Wong, 256 AD2d 427, 428 [1998]; see generally People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Michael Strong
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 14, 1998.
256 A.D.2d 427
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13395
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered January 8, 1997, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was prejudiced by the court’s justification charge is without merit. Although the court’s initial charge was improper because it did not relate the law of justification to the facts of the case, the court cured this error in its supplemental instructions to the jury (see, People v Breland, 109 AD2d 890). When viewed in its entirety, the court’s charge adequately conveyed the proper definitions and elements of the justification defense (see, People v Martinez, 243 AD2d 732; People v Thomas, 179 AD2d 793). The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding the charge are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Miller, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.