People v. Gandarilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gandarilla

244 A.D.2d 500, 665 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 500 (People v. Gandarilla) 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. Gandarilla, 244 A.D.2d 500, 665 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered September 21, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim with respect to the propriety of the [501]*501search warrant application is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (cf., People v Brown, 40 NY2d 183; People v Vanderpool, 217 AD2d 716; People v Castillo, 176 AD2d 609, affd 80 NY2d 578, 584). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered September 21, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim with respect to the propriety of the [501]*501search warrant application is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (cf., People v Brown, 40 NY2d 183; People v Vanderpool, 217 AD2d 716; People v Castillo, 176 AD2d 609, affd 80 NY2d 578, 584). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 500, 665 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gandarilla-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack