People v. Cody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cody

137 A.D.2d 610, 524 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 977

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 610 (People v. Cody) 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. Cody, 137 A.D.2d 610, 524 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered January 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[611]*611The defendant complains that certain remarks in the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial. However, at trial there was an objection to only one of the comments. Consequently, with that one exception, the defendant’s claim is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, as to the one objected-to remark, the Trial Judge sustained the objection. Since the defendant did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial, it must be concluded that any error was cured to the defendant’s satisfaction (see, People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951).

In addition, the Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial when an undercover police officer testified that he was investigating the possibility of other criminal activity at the after-hours social club where the drug transactions were consummated. Because the officer did not suggest that the defendant was involved in the other criminal activities, no prejudice to the defendant resulted from this testimony (see, People v Brotherton, 122 AD2d 850, lv denied 69 NY2d 709). In addition, the Trial Judge sustained counsel’s objection, ordered the remark stricken and promptly instructed the jury to disregard the statement (see, People v Brotherton, supra).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered January 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[611]*611The defendant complains that certain remarks in the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial. However, at trial there was an objection to only one of the comments. Consequently, with that one exception, the defendant’s claim is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, as to the one objected-to remark, the Trial Judge sustained the objection. Since the defendant did not request a curative instruction or move for a mistrial, it must be concluded that any error was cured to the defendant’s satisfaction (see, People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951).

In addition, the Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial when an undercover police officer testified that he was investigating the possibility of other criminal activity at the after-hours social club where the drug transactions were consummated. Because the officer did not suggest that the defendant was involved in the other criminal activities, no prejudice to the defendant resulted from this testimony (see, People v Brotherton, 122 AD2d 850, lv denied 69 NY2d 709). In addition, the Trial Judge sustained counsel’s objection, ordered the remark stricken and promptly instructed the jury to disregard the statement (see, People v Brotherton, supra).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 610, 524 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cody-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack