People v. Dominguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dominguez

247 A.D.2d 282, 668 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1544

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 282 (People v. Dominguez) 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. Dominguez, 247 A.D.2d 282, 668 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contemporaneous uncharged drug sales, or apparent drug sales, were properly admitted (see, People v Pressley, 216 AD2d 202, lv denied 86 NY2d 800). Defendant’s procedural challenges to the court’s receipt of this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them to be without merit (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 362). The credibility and reliability of the undercover officer’s testimony concerning the uncharged transactions were questions for the jury.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contemporaneous uncharged drug sales, or apparent drug sales, were properly admitted (see, People v Pressley, 216 AD2d 202, lv denied 86 NY2d 800). Defendant’s procedural challenges to the court’s receipt of this evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find them to be without merit (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 362). The credibility and reliability of the undercover officer’s testimony concerning the uncharged transactions were questions for the jury.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 282, 668 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dominguez-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack