People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hill

251 A.D.2d 4, 672 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370

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

DecidedJune 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 4 (People v. Hill) 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. Hill, 251 A.D.2d 4, 672 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered November 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The courtroom was properly closed during the undercover detective’s testimony (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). The Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of defendant’s arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer’s future investigative work” (People v Brown, 214 AD2d 438, 439, lv denied 86 NY2d 791). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, 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 (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered November 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The courtroom was properly closed during the undercover detective’s testimony (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). The Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of defendant’s arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer’s future investigative work” (People v Brown, 214 AD2d 438, 439, lv denied 86 NY2d 791). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 4, 672 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack