From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Satloff

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 13, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 745 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Argued April 2, 1982

Decided May 13, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, RICHARD C. DELIN, J.

Howard Rudnick for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney ( Lawrence J. Schwarz and William C. Donnino of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant's contention that the jury's verdicts on two counts of the indictment are inconsistent is not preserved for our review. Following discharge of the jury, defense counsel complained, for the first time, of the asserted inconsistency. At this point, it was no longer possible to remedy the defect, if any, by resubmission to the jury for reconsideration of its verdicts ( People v Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048, 1050). Such a protest must be registered prior to the discharge of the jury properly to preserve the issue for review in this court.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Satloff

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 13, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 745 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

People v. Satloff

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SATLOFF…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 13, 1982

Citations

56 N.Y.2d 745 (N.Y. 1982)
452 N.Y.S.2d 12
437 N.E.2d 271

Citing Cases

People v. Santiago

Repugnant VerdictA claim of a repugnant verdict must be raised before the jury is discharged (see People v…

People v. Sanchez

As noted in the dissent, under ordinary circumstances an alleged inconsistency in a verdict must be asserted…