People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diaz

211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Diaz) 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. Diaz, 211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered January 5, 1993, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly granted the People’s application to close the courtroom since the undercover officer had ongoing investigations in the same area where the drug sale in question occurred, and she intended to return to the area in the near future (People v Badillo, 207 AD2d 742).

Defendant was not denied his right to counsel during the Grand Jury proceeding pursuant to CPL 190.52 (1). Even if counsel sat 20 feet away from defendant during the Grand Jury proceedings, there is no indication in the record either that the prosecutor prevented defendant from conferring with his attorney, or that defendant sought to confer with counsel and was unable to do so. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered January 5, 1993, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly granted the People’s application to close the courtroom since the undercover officer had ongoing investigations in the same area where the drug sale in question occurred, and she intended to return to the area in the near future (People v Badillo, 207 AD2d 742).

Defendant was not denied his right to counsel during the Grand Jury proceeding pursuant to CPL 190.52 (1). Even if counsel sat 20 feet away from defendant during the Grand Jury proceedings, there is no indication in the record either that the prosecutor prevented defendant from conferring with his attorney, or that defendant sought to confer with counsel and was unable to do so. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 402, 621 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diaz-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack