People v. Antoneddy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Antoneddy

226 A.D.2d 549, 641 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4324

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered July 21, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial as a result of being tried in absentia when he absconded before the commencement of trial (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136; People v Roe, 196 AD2d 899, 900). The court did not err in denying defense counsel’s request for a missing witness charge concerning the undercover police officer who monitored the so-called "buy-and-bust” transaction for which the defendant was arrested. The undercover officer was unavailable to testify as a result of injuries received in an unrelated "buy-and-bust” operation during which, among other injuries, his jaw was broken in three places and had to be wired [550] shut (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Shaw, 160 AD2d 1032, 1033; People v Aufiero, 139 AD2d 656, 657). Furthermore, the evidence in the record supports the court’s conclusion that the testimony of the uncalled witness would have been entirely cumulative (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 536-537; People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761, 763; People v Vasquez, 76 NY2d 722, 724; People v Erts, 73 NY2d 872, 874).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered July 21, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial as a result of being tried in absentia when he absconded before the commencement of trial (see, People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136; People v Roe, 196 AD2d 899, 900). The court did not err in denying defense counsel’s request for a missing witness charge concerning the undercover police officer who monitored the so-called "buy-and-bust” transaction for which the defendant was arrested. The undercover officer was unavailable to testify as a result of injuries received in an unrelated "buy-and-bust” operation during which, among other injuries, his jaw was broken in three places and had to be wired [550] shut (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424; People v Shaw, 160 AD2d 1032, 1033; People v Aufiero, 139 AD2d 656, 657). Furthermore, the evidence in the record supports the court’s conclusion that the testimony of the uncalled witness would have been entirely cumulative (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 536-537; People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761, 763; People v Vasquez, 76 NY2d 722, 724; People v Erts, 73 NY2d 872, 874).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Antoneddy, 226 A.D.2d 549, 641 N.Y.S.2d 95, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 549 (People v. Antoneddy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related