People v. Ferreiras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ferreiras

222 A.D.2d 202, 635 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12625

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Su[203]*203preme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered March 1, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

In the absence of a further record that might have been developed had an appropriate motion been made pursuant to CPL 440.10, we cannot conclude on the existing record that defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998, 1000). Although counsel did not move to suppress identification testimony in timely fashion, such a motion would, in all probability, have been summarily denied (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921).

The trial court’s various rulings imposing reasonable limits upon cross-examination of the People’s witnesses constituted appropriate exercises of discretion (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846), and did not preclude inquiry into any relevant subject matter.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

We have considered defendant’s additional claims of error and find them to be unpreserved and without merit. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Su[203]*203preme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered March 1, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

In the absence of a further record that might have been developed had an appropriate motion been made pursuant to CPL 440.10, we cannot conclude on the existing record that defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998, 1000). Although counsel did not move to suppress identification testimony in timely fashion, such a motion would, in all probability, have been summarily denied (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921).

The trial court’s various rulings imposing reasonable limits upon cross-examination of the People’s witnesses constituted appropriate exercises of discretion (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846), and did not preclude inquiry into any relevant subject matter.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

We have considered defendant’s additional claims of error and find them to be unpreserved and without merit. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

People v. Ferreiras, 222 A.D.2d 202, 635 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

222 A.D.2d 202 (People v. Ferreiras) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related