People v. Drozd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Drozd

121 A.D.2d 561, 503 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58545

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

DecidedJune 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 561 (People v. Drozd) 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. Drozd, 121 A.D.2d 561, 503 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eiber, J.), rendered April 13, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The commission of the burglary by the defendant was established beyond a reasonable doubt in that the defendant was found in conscious, recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime and did not offer any credible explanation as to how those fruits were obtained (see, People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64).

The other claims asserted by the defendant on appeal relate to matters which were not raised at trial and therefore are unpreserved for review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eiber, J.), rendered April 13, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The commission of the burglary by the defendant was established beyond a reasonable doubt in that the defendant was found in conscious, recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime and did not offer any credible explanation as to how those fruits were obtained (see, People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64).

The other claims asserted by the defendant on appeal relate to matters which were not raised at trial and therefore are unpreserved for review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 561, 503 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drozd-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack