People v. Dashosh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dashosh

6 A.D.2d 684, 175 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5731

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

DecidedMay 27, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 684 (People v. Dashosh) 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. Dashosh, 6 A.D.2d 684, 175 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. One of the issues urged by the defendant in seeking a reversal is that the witness Olavarria was an accomplice and that the court failed to rule or charge in that respect, as required by People v. Malizia (4 N Y 2d 22). That question is not reached. Even if considered from the view urged, the record is completely barren of any [685]*685testimony from which it earn be concluded, even inferentially, that the defendant was aware that the purchase of narcotics made by Olavarria from him was for the purpose of resale, let alone to establish that the two were acting in a “ joint venture ” (4 N Y 2d 26). We find no merit in the other claims of error urged by the defendant. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Prank and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. One of the issues urged by the defendant in seeking a reversal is that the witness Olavarria was an accomplice and that the court failed to rule or charge in that respect, as required by People v. Malizia (4 N Y 2d 22). That question is not reached. Even if considered from the view urged, the record is completely barren of any [685]*685testimony from which it earn be concluded, even inferentially, that the defendant was aware that the purchase of narcotics made by Olavarria from him was for the purpose of resale, let alone to establish that the two were acting in a “ joint venture ” (4 N Y 2d 26). We find no merit in the other claims of error urged by the defendant. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Prank and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 684, 175 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dashosh-nyappdiv-1958.