People v. Gilmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gilmore

270 A.D.2d 286, 704 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2452

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 286 (People v. Gilmore) 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. Gilmore, 270 A.D.2d 286, 704 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered July 22, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to a police sergeant who was part of the field team in a so-called “buy and bust” operation. The defendant failed to establish that the witness was knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case, i.e., the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532).

. The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered July 22, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to a missing witness charge with respect to a police sergeant who was part of the field team in a so-called “buy and bust” operation. The defendant failed to establish that the witness was knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case, i.e., the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator (see, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532).

. The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 286, 704 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gilmore-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack