People v. Cotto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cotto

300 A.D.2d 191, 750 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12827

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 191 (People v. Cotto) 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. Cotto, 300 A.D.2d 191, 750 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), rendered February 14, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By expressly agreeing to a compromise plan whereby the courtroom would be closed, during two undercover officers’ testimony, to the general public and to several of the numerous persons defendant had requested to have in attendance, defendant waived his claim that his right to a public trial was violated (see People v Sterling, 221 AD2d 235, lv denied 88 NY2d 854; see also People v Lanhorn, 283 AD2d 254, lv denied 97 NY2d 642). Each of defendant’s remaining claims requires preservation (see People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review any of defendant’s claims, we would find no basis for reversal. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), rendered February 14, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By expressly agreeing to a compromise plan whereby the courtroom would be closed, during two undercover officers’ testimony, to the general public and to several of the numerous persons defendant had requested to have in attendance, defendant waived his claim that his right to a public trial was violated (see People v Sterling, 221 AD2d 235, lv denied 88 NY2d 854; see also People v Lanhorn, 283 AD2d 254, lv denied 97 NY2d 642). Each of defendant’s remaining claims requires preservation (see People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review any of defendant’s claims, we would find no basis for reversal. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 191, 750 N.Y.S.2d 865, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cotto-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack