People v. Grullon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grullon

204 A.D.2d 171, 614 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343

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

DecidedMay 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 171 (People v. Grullon) 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. Grullon, 204 A.D.2d 171, 614 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered March 31, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4XA to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s request for the officer’s daily activity report for the day following the arrest of defendant since it did not relate to the subject matter of his testimony (see, People v Watkins, 157 AD2d 301, 313-314).

Defendant’s contention that evidence of the buy and bust procedure was improperly introduced is without merit. The People properly introduced such evidence to rebut defendant’s argument that it was poorly executed (see, People v Kelsey, 194 AD2d 248, 252). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered March 31, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4XA to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s request for the officer’s daily activity report for the day following the arrest of defendant since it did not relate to the subject matter of his testimony (see, People v Watkins, 157 AD2d 301, 313-314).

Defendant’s contention that evidence of the buy and bust procedure was improperly introduced is without merit. The People properly introduced such evidence to rebut defendant’s argument that it was poorly executed (see, People v Kelsey, 194 AD2d 248, 252). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 171, 614 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grullon-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack