People v. Carter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carter

291 A.D.2d 355, 737 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2136

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 355 (People v. Carter) 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. Carter, 291 A.D.2d 355, 737 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered October 13, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence premised on the fact that part of the transaction occurred in a lobby and therefore did not occur on “school grounds” as defined by Penal Law § 220.00 (14) is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug transaction, viewed as a whole, occurred on school grounds within the meaning of the statute (see, People v Perez, 277 AD2d 1, lv denied 96 NY2d 737). Concur— Williams, J.P., Lerner, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered October 13, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence premised on the fact that part of the transaction occurred in a lobby and therefore did not occur on “school grounds” as defined by Penal Law § 220.00 (14) is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the People established beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug transaction, viewed as a whole, occurred on school grounds within the meaning of the statute (see, People v Perez, 277 AD2d 1, lv denied 96 NY2d 737). Concur— Williams, J.P., Lerner, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 355, 737 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carter-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack