People v. Green

251 A.D.2d 595, 673 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Green. Read the opinion of the Court — 216 A.D.2d 170

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered January 29, 1996, 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.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution {see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant was guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under an acting-in-concert theory (see, People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Green, 251 A.D.2d 595, 673 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

251 A.D.2d 595 (People v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Kaplan
556 N.E.2d 415 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)