People v. Brooker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brooker

292 A.D.2d 282, 739 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 282 (People v. Brooker) 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. Brooker, 292 A.D.2d 282, 739 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriere, J.), rendered August 5,1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the suppression hearing should have been reopened based on alleged contradictions between hearing and trial testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no discrepancy that would have affected the outcome of the hearing (see, People v Meachem, 288 AD2d 162). Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Corriere, J.), rendered August 5,1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the suppression hearing should have been reopened based on alleged contradictions between hearing and trial testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no discrepancy that would have affected the outcome of the hearing (see, People v Meachem, 288 AD2d 162). Concur — Williams, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 282, 739 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brooker-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack