Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Gerson Luna, appellant.
Argued—November 6, 2017
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John LaTella, J.), rendered January 28, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), and unlawful possession of personal identifying information in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by allegedly improper remarks made by the Supreme Court to the prospective jurors during voir dire (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Dudley, 151 AD3d 878, 879; People v. Sutton, 151 AD3d 763, 766; People v. Mason, 132 AD3d 777, 779; People v. Cunningham, 119 AD3d 601, 601). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's alleged misconduct did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation (see People v. Brown, 7 NY3d 880, 881; People v. Dudley, 151 AD3d at 879; People v. Sutton, 151 AD3d at 766; People v. Mason, 132 AD3d at 779; People v. Cunningham, 119 AD3d at 601–602). In any event, the court's remarks to the prospective jurors do not warrant reversal (see People v. Dudley, 151 AD3d at 879; People v. Sutton, 151 AD3d at 766; People v. Mason, 132 AD3d at 779).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
ROMAN, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2016–02164 (Ind.No. 1287 /15)
Decided: February 14, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)