People v. Delfyette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delfyette

223 A.D.2d 453, 636 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 453 (People v. Delfyette) 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. Delfyette, 223 A.D.2d 453, 636 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, [454]*454Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered April 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 11 to 22 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s generalized objection failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court improperly admitted into evidence the statement he made to the arresting officer about being unemployed. Nor is reversal warranted in the interest of justice. First, there was no violation of CPL 710.30 (1) (a) because the statement was taken as pedigree information (People v Rodney, 85 NY2d 289). Second, even if defendant’s employment status was of questionable relevance as part of the People’s direct case, any error in that regard became harmless once defendant testified in his own behalf, because his employment status was relevant, not only to his general credibility, but to specific issues raised by his testimony.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, [454]*454Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered April 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 11 to 22 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s generalized objection failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court improperly admitted into evidence the statement he made to the arresting officer about being unemployed. Nor is reversal warranted in the interest of justice. First, there was no violation of CPL 710.30 (1) (a) because the statement was taken as pedigree information (People v Rodney, 85 NY2d 289). Second, even if defendant’s employment status was of questionable relevance as part of the People’s direct case, any error in that regard became harmless once defendant testified in his own behalf, because his employment status was relevant, not only to his general credibility, but to specific issues raised by his testimony.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 453, 636 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delfyette-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack