People v. Dobbins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dobbins

240 A.D.2d 200, 658 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161

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

DecidedJune 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 200 (People v. Dobbins) 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. Dobbins, 240 A.D.2d 200, 658 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered December 6, 1994, 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 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459; People v Rivera, 227 AD2d 205, lv denied 88 NY2d 993).

By failing to make sufficient offers of proof, defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court improperly limited his cross-examination at the suppression hearing (People v Nieves, 215 AD2d 325, lv denied 86 NY2d 799). Were we to review these claims in the interest of justice, we would find that the hearing court properly precluded, as irrelevant, cross-examination of the arresting officer concerning unrelated arrests he made on the day of defendant’s arrest (see, People v Alston, 215 AD2d 108, 109, lv denied 86 NY2d 732; People v Gonzalez, 189 AD2d 701, lv denied 81 NY2d 971). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered December 6, 1994, 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 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459; People v Rivera, 227 AD2d 205, lv denied 88 NY2d 993).

By failing to make sufficient offers of proof, defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court improperly limited his cross-examination at the suppression hearing (People v Nieves, 215 AD2d 325, lv denied 86 NY2d 799). Were we to review these claims in the interest of justice, we would find that the hearing court properly precluded, as irrelevant, cross-examination of the arresting officer concerning unrelated arrests he made on the day of defendant’s arrest (see, People v Alston, 215 AD2d 108, 109, lv denied 86 NY2d 732; People v Gonzalez, 189 AD2d 701, lv denied 81 NY2d 971). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 200, 658 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dobbins-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack