People v. Harding

266 A.D.2d 310, 697 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11295
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 8, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered April 17, 1998, 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 defendant’s contention that the jury charge regarding interested witnesses was unbalanced is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rodriguez, 258 AD2d 537). In any event, the interested witness charge was balanced and adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards for evaluating a witness’s testimony (see, People v Rodriguez, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Harding, 266 A.D.2d 310, 697 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

266 A.D.2d 310 (People v. Harding) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Jean-Baptiste
37 A.D.3d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Harding
276 A.D.2d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Rasmussen
275 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)