Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

People v. Phillip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 10, 2003

1 A.D.2d 466; 766 N.Y.S.2d 698; 1 A.D.3d 466; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11857

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Varner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Ortiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Allums (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Ivery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Sioleski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), rendered June 5, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly denied in an order dated November 16, 1995, his application for a telephone to be installed in his cell. Although the defendant asserts that he needed a telephone installed in his cell in order to conduct an unimpeded investigation, he was afforded an investigator who could assist him in producing witnesses and *467conducting his investigation. The defendant made no assertions that his investigator’s performance was unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the defendant did not establish that he was prejudiced by not having a telephone in his cell (see People v Bosket, 216 AD2d 791, 794 [1995]; People v Marlowe, 167 AD2d 692 [1990]; People v Hendy, 159 AD2d 250 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or not properly before this Court. Altman, J.E, Smith, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.