People v. Hooks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hooks

254 A.D.2d 192, 679 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11168

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 192 (People v. Hooks) 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. Hooks, 254 A.D.2d 192, 679 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evi[193]*193dence of accessorial liability, including defendant’s explicit acknowledgment to the undercover officer that he was “working with” the other participant in the sale.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered September 12, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evi[193]*193dence of accessorial liability, including defendant’s explicit acknowledgment to the undercover officer that he was “working with” the other participant in the sale.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 192, 679 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hooks-nyappdiv-1998.