Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
People v. Padro
75 N.Y.2d 820
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1990-02-08
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- requiring a new trial where indigent defendant requested a change of counsel and where record indicated a possible irreconcilable conflict between the defendant and his assigned attorney
- "A postverdict motion made pursuant to CPL 330.30 is not, by itself, ordinarily sufficient to preserve a 'question of law' within the meaning of CPL 470.05(2)[.]"
- "A post verdict motion . . . is not, by itself, ordinarily sufficient to preserve a 'question of law' within the meaning of [Crim. Proc. Law] 470.05(2) . . . for review in this Court."
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Padro. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 148 opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed. A postverdict motion made pursuant to CPL 330.30 is not, by itself, ordinarily sufficient to preserve a "question of law” within the meaning of CPL 470.05 (2) and inasmuch as defendant failed to make appropriate objections during trial, the points presented by defendant are not preserved for review in this court.
Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa. Taking no part: Judge Alexander.