People v. Fonseca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fonseca

262 A.D.2d 239, 690 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7738

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

DecidedJune 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 239 (People v. Fonseca) 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. Fonseca, 262 A.D.2d 239, 690 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [240]*240Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered February 20, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge on reasonable doubt are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that although the preferred phrasing was not always employed by the court, the charge, when read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate standards (see, People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [240]*240Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered February 20, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge on reasonable doubt are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that although the preferred phrasing was not always employed by the court, the charge, when read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate standards (see, People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 239, 690 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fonseca-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack