People v. Gilbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gilbert

7 A.D.3d 286, 776 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603

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

DecidedMay 6, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 286 (People v. Gilbert) 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. Gilbert, 7 A.D.3d 286, 776 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[287]*287Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 1, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of defendant’s interactions with the other persons present warrants the conclusion that defendant was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role, at a minimum, consisted of evaluating the undercover officer as a prospective purchaser (see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

Testimony that at the time of his arrest defendant was in possession of an unspecified amount of money that was not prerecorded buy money could not have caused any prejudice. Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom. J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[287]*287Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 1, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of defendant’s interactions with the other persons present warrants the conclusion that defendant was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role, at a minimum, consisted of evaluating the undercover officer as a prospective purchaser (see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

Testimony that at the time of his arrest defendant was in possession of an unspecified amount of money that was not prerecorded buy money could not have caused any prejudice. Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom. J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 286, 776 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gilbert-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack