People v. Hatzipavlou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hatzipavlou

175 A.D.2d 969, 573 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11448

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

DecidedAugust 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 969 (People v. Hatzipavlou) 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. Hatzipavlou, 175 A.D.2d 969, 573 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered May 29, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Initially, we note that defendant’s challenge to the adequacy of his court-appointed interpreter was not preserved for review insofar as he failed to object or express any dissatisfaction at trial (see, People v Duenas, 120 AD2d 978). In any event, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the interpreter was unable to, or that he failed to, properly translate for defendant (see, supra). Defendant’s contention that the People failed to establish a chain of custody for the introduction into evidence of the weapon allegedly in defendant’s possession is equally unavailing. The testimony of the officers involved sufficiently established a chain of custody (see, People v Joy, 107 AD2d 938) and we also note that defendant’s counsel subsequently affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the weapon’s introduction into evidence (see, People v Hurd, 160 AD2d 199, lv denied 76 NY2d 789). As to defendant’s remaining contentions, they have been considered [970]*970and found either to be unpreserved for review or rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered May 29, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Initially, we note that defendant’s challenge to the adequacy of his court-appointed interpreter was not preserved for review insofar as he failed to object or express any dissatisfaction at trial (see, People v Duenas, 120 AD2d 978). In any event, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the interpreter was unable to, or that he failed to, properly translate for defendant (see, supra). Defendant’s contention that the People failed to establish a chain of custody for the introduction into evidence of the weapon allegedly in defendant’s possession is equally unavailing. The testimony of the officers involved sufficiently established a chain of custody (see, People v Joy, 107 AD2d 938) and we also note that defendant’s counsel subsequently affirmatively stated that he had no objection to the weapon’s introduction into evidence (see, People v Hurd, 160 AD2d 199, lv denied 76 NY2d 789). As to defendant’s remaining contentions, they have been considered [970]*970and found either to be unpreserved for review or rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 969, 573 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hatzipavlou-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack