People v. Corrica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corrica

237 A.D.2d 372, 655 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2305

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 1997·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County [373] (Owens, J.), rendered October 2, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hammond, 208 AD2d 559; People v Brown, 178 AD2d 647).

The court’s discharge of two sworn jurors constituted a provident exercise of the court’s discretion (see, CPL 270.35; People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385).

The defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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 [373] (Owens, J.), rendered October 2, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hammond, 208 AD2d 559; People v Brown, 178 AD2d 647).

The court’s discharge of two sworn jurors constituted a provident exercise of the court’s discretion (see, CPL 270.35; People v Rodriguez, 71 NY2d 214; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290; People v Jamison, 203 AD2d 385).

The defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Corrica, 237 A.D.2d 372, 655 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 372 (People v. Corrica) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related