People v. Flores

215 A.D.2d 776, 627 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Flores. Read the opinion of the Court — 210 A.D.2d 1

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered March 28, 1994, 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, he was not entitled to a jury charge on the question of agency. No reasonable view of the evidence would lead to the conclusion that the defendant was acting solely as an agent of the buyer. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the defendant was a middleman or "steerer” of the supplier (People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780, 782).

The defendant’s remaining contentions were either not preserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Flores, 215 A.D.2d 776, 627 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

215 A.D.2d 776 (People v. Flores) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Herring
632 N.E.2d 1272 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)