People v. Dwight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dwight

266 A.D.2d 402, 697 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11477

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Dwight) 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. Dwight, 266 A.D.2d 402, 697 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered April 16, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly concluded that the prosecutor supplied race-neutral explanations for his peremptory challenge of a certain black juror (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84, 89). The defendant thereafter failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the explanations provided were merely pretextual (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181; People v Rivers, 255 AD2d 463; People v Lassic, 254 AD2d 303; People v Richie, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v McKay, 260 AD2d 408; People v Callistro, 259 AD2d 625). Thompson, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 (Orgera, J.), rendered April 16, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly concluded that the prosecutor supplied race-neutral explanations for his peremptory challenge of a certain black juror (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84, 89). The defendant thereafter failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the explanations provided were merely pretextual (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181; People v Rivers, 255 AD2d 463; People v Lassic, 254 AD2d 303; People v Richie, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292; People v McKay, 260 AD2d 408; People v Callistro, 259 AD2d 625). Thompson, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 402, 697 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dwight-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack