People v. Anderson

275 A.D.2d 747, 713 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9243
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Anderson. Read the opinion of the Court — 252 A.D.2d 399

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered June 3, 1998, convicting him of criminal salé of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a [748]*748reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was a provident exercise of discretion (see, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Anderson, 275 A.D.2d 747, 713 N.Y.S.2d 494, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

275 A.D.2d 747 (People v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Sandoval
314 N.E.2d 413 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
People v. Pavao
451 N.E.2d 216 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Mattiace
568 N.E.2d 1189 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)