People v. Alvarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alvarez

278 A.D.2d 332, 718 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12941

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 11, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by [333] the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered April 23, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the court improperly precluded him from asking the undercover officer his name is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the People established that the justifiable fear of . the undercover officer for his safety constituted a sufficiently cognizable State interest (see, People v Stanard, 42 NY2d 74). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the name of the undercover officer was material in any way to the issues raised at trial (see, People v Stanard, supra; People v Remgifo, 150 AD2d 736).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by [333] the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered April 23, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the court improperly precluded him from asking the undercover officer his name is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, the People established that the justifiable fear of . the undercover officer for his safety constituted a sufficiently cognizable State interest (see, People v Stanard, 42 NY2d 74). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the name of the undercover officer was material in any way to the issues raised at trial (see, People v Stanard, supra; People v Remgifo, 150 AD2d 736).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

People v. Alvarez, 278 A.D.2d 332, 718 N.Y.S.2d 204, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 332 (People v. Alvarez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related