People v. Esquiled

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Esquiled

297 A.D.2d 687, 747 N.Y.2d 188, 747 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 687 (People v. Esquiled) 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. Esquiled, 297 A.D.2d 687, 747 N.Y.2d 188, 747 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s claim that the trial court should have reopened the pretrial Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218) based upon the testimony elicited during the trial is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move for that relief (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feinsod, 278 AD2d 335, 336; People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155; People v Meyer, 255 AD2d 272). The defendant’s attempt to use the trial testimony to challenge the pretrial suppression ruling is impermissible (see People v Polk, 284 AD2d 416, 417; People v Feinsod, supra; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467, 468).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s claim that the trial court should have reopened the pretrial Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218) based upon the testimony elicited during the trial is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move for that relief (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feinsod, 278 AD2d 335, 336; People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155; People v Meyer, 255 AD2d 272). The defendant’s attempt to use the trial testimony to challenge the pretrial suppression ruling is impermissible (see People v Polk, 284 AD2d 416, 417; People v Feinsod, supra; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467, 468).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 687, 747 N.Y.2d 188, 747 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-esquiled-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack