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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 10, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

253 A.D.2d 469 (People v. Grzebyk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related