People v. Ford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ford

235 A.D.2d 285, 654 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 512

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 285 (People v. Ford) 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. Ford, 235 A.D.2d 285, 654 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered July 12, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly closed the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony on the basis of his continuing undercover operations in the area of the arrest, and, since defendant’s counsel never suggested any reasonable alternatives to closure, the trial court was not required to consider such alternatives (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 445-446). To the extent that Ayala v Speckard (89 F3d 91) could be viewed as requiring a contrary result, we decline to follow it (People v Lugo, 233 AD2d 197). Although the court ruled that defendant’s relatives would be excluded from the courtroom, defendant’s present claim that his brother and cousin were improperly excluded is unpreserved and unreviewable, since defendant merely suggested that these relatives might wish to attend, and there is no indication that any relatives ever came to the courtroom (see, People v Bouche, 208 AD2d 445, Iv denied 84 NY2d 1009).

We have considered defendant’s Batson contention and find it to be unpreserved and without merit (see, People v Lynn, 224 AD2d 294, lv denied 88 NY2d 881). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered July 12, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly closed the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony on the basis of his continuing undercover operations in the area of the arrest, and, since defendant’s counsel never suggested any reasonable alternatives to closure, the trial court was not required to consider such alternatives (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 445-446). To the extent that Ayala v Speckard (89 F3d 91) could be viewed as requiring a contrary result, we decline to follow it (People v Lugo, 233 AD2d 197). Although the court ruled that defendant’s relatives would be excluded from the courtroom, defendant’s present claim that his brother and cousin were improperly excluded is unpreserved and unreviewable, since defendant merely suggested that these relatives might wish to attend, and there is no indication that any relatives ever came to the courtroom (see, People v Bouche, 208 AD2d 445, Iv denied 84 NY2d 1009).

We have considered defendant’s Batson contention and find it to be unpreserved and without merit (see, People v Lynn, 224 AD2d 294, lv denied 88 NY2d 881). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 285, 654 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ford-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack