People v. Gorsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gorsky

158 A.D.2d 469, 551 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1293

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 469 (People v. Gorsky) 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. Gorsky, 158 A.D.2d 469, 551 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was found guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree after having allegedly sold over four ounces of a substance containing cocaine to an undercover police officer.

The defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the substance purchased from him which contained cocaine. This claim of error, however, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vasquez, 131 AD2d 523, 524; see also, People v Donovan, 59 NY2d 834, 836), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant also claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. This contention is meritless. Viewing the totality of the circumstances herein, we find that the defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant was found guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree after having allegedly sold over four ounces of a substance containing cocaine to an undercover police officer.

The defendant’s primary contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the substance purchased from him which contained cocaine. This claim of error, however, is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Vasquez, 131 AD2d 523, 524; see also, People v Donovan, 59 NY2d 834, 836), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant also claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. This contention is meritless. Viewing the totality of the circumstances herein, we find that the defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 469, 551 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gorsky-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack