People v. Holliday

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holliday

276 A.D.2d 279, 713 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10055

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

DecidedOctober 5, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 279 (People v. Holliday) 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. Holliday, 276 A.D.2d 279, 713 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered March 12, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and [280]*280criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the substance sold and possessed was cocaine is not preserved for review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review that claim, we would find that notwithstanding the failure to specify the substance in a stipulation that was read into the record, the jury had ample basis for concluding that the recovered substances were in fact cocaine.

Defendant’s claim that the court closed the courtroom during an undercover officer’s testimony without conducting any hearing as to that officer is a claim requiring preservation (People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547, 550), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the record does not establish that there was, in fact, a closure. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered March 12, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and [280]*280criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the substance sold and possessed was cocaine is not preserved for review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review that claim, we would find that notwithstanding the failure to specify the substance in a stipulation that was read into the record, the jury had ample basis for concluding that the recovered substances were in fact cocaine.

Defendant’s claim that the court closed the courtroom during an undercover officer’s testimony without conducting any hearing as to that officer is a claim requiring preservation (People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547, 550), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the record does not establish that there was, in fact, a closure. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 279, 713 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holliday-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack