People v. Aderonmu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aderonmu

305 A.D.2d 179, 757 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 8, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 179 (People v. Aderonmu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Aderonmu, 305 A.D.2d 179, 757 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J., at suppression hearing; Lawrence Bernstein, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 13, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The only issue raised by defendant on appeal concerns an airport seizure that he did not challenge before the suppression court. Accordingly, defendant’s present argument is unpreserved (see People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029 [1980]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Moreover, the present issue is unreviewable because the relevant facts are outside the record (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772 [1983]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J., at suppression hearing; Lawrence Bernstein, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 13, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The only issue raised by defendant on appeal concerns an airport seizure that he did not challenge before the suppression court. Accordingly, defendant’s present argument is unpreserved (see People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029 [1980]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Moreover, the present issue is unreviewable because the relevant facts are outside the record (see People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772 [1983]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 179, 757 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aderonmu-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack