People v. Gaines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gaines

64 A.D.3d 727, 882 N.Y.S.2d 652

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

DecidedJuly 21, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.3d 727 (People v. Gaines) 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. Gaines, 64 A.D.3d 727, 882 N.Y.S.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 7, 2007, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to review of the denial of his motion to suppress certain identification testimony based on the People’s failure to give him notice of an alleged photographic identification (see People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; People v Shippy, 53 AD3d 590 [2008]; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 572 [2004]; People v Roper, 25 AD3d 628 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered September 7, 2007, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to review of the denial of his motion to suppress certain identification testimony based on the People’s failure to give him notice of an alleged photographic identification (see People v Taylor, 65 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]; People v Shippy, 53 AD3d 590 [2008]; see also People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 572 [2004]; People v Roper, 25 AD3d 628 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.3d 727, 882 N.Y.S.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gaines-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack