People v. Burnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burnett

116 A.D.2d 731, 498 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51583

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 731 (People v. Burnett) 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. Burnett, 116 A.D.2d 731, 498 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered July 5, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

As defendant never sought a bill of particulars, he cannot now complain about the alleged inaccuracy of the information in the bill of particulars which was furnished in response to his codefendant’s request (see, People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144, cert denied — US —, 106 S Ct 166). In any event, defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the inaccuracy (see, People v Petterson, 103 AD2d 811; People v Ames, 115 AD2d 543).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find that they are unpreserved or without merit (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered July 5, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

As defendant never sought a bill of particulars, he cannot now complain about the alleged inaccuracy of the information in the bill of particulars which was furnished in response to his codefendant’s request (see, People v Foster, 64 NY2d 1144, cert denied — US —, 106 S Ct 166). In any event, defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of the inaccuracy (see, People v Petterson, 103 AD2d 811; People v Ames, 115 AD2d 543).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find that they are unpreserved or without merit (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 731, 498 N.Y.S.2d 30, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burnett-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack