People v. Grzebyk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grzebyk

253 A.D.2d 469, 675 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8827

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 469 (People v. Grzebyk) 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. Grzebyk, 253 A.D.2d 469, 675 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered October 20, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence that a “Street Narcotic Enforcement Unit” was deployed to the area where the defendant was arrested because there had been community complaints, was properly admitted as useful background information explaining the police presence and conduct (see, People v Granado, 222 AD2d 286; People v Rodriguez, 219 AD2d 522; People v Garcia, 213 AD2d 249). Any prejudice to the defendant was effectively eliminated by the trial court’s prompt limiting instructions, presumably understood and followed by the jury (see, People v Granado, supra). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), rendered October 20, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence that a “Street Narcotic Enforcement Unit” was deployed to the area where the defendant was arrested because there had been community complaints, was properly admitted as useful background information explaining the police presence and conduct (see, People v Granado, 222 AD2d 286; People v Rodriguez, 219 AD2d 522; People v Garcia, 213 AD2d 249). Any prejudice to the defendant was effectively eliminated by the trial court’s prompt limiting instructions, presumably understood and followed by the jury (see, People v Granado, supra). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 469, 675 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grzebyk-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack