Case ID: ad3d_1/html/0466-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Phillip, Appellant.
    [766 NYS2d 698]
   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 conducting 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.