People v. Faber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Faber

257 A.D.2d 488, 682 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 429

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 488 (People v. Faber) 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. Faber, 257 A.D.2d 488, 682 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J., on motion; Daniel FitzGerald, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 10, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing defendant’s sentence to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, and otherwise affirmed.

We find that defendant’s assertions were insufficient to warrant a Dunaway hearing.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s identification charge is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the charge to be balanced and not prejudicial.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, J., on motion; Daniel FitzGerald, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 10, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing defendant’s sentence to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, and otherwise affirmed.

We find that defendant’s assertions were insufficient to warrant a Dunaway hearing.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s identification charge is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the charge to be balanced and not prejudicial.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 488, 682 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-faber-nyappdiv-1999.