People v. Hossain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hossain

298 A.D.2d 599, 748 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10320

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 599 (People v. Hossain) 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. Hossain, 298 A.D.2d 599, 748 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the [600]*600defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered September 18, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Griffin, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the suppression hearing should have been reopened based on the trial testimony of the eyewitness who identified the defendant’s car to the arresting officer is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to ask the trial court to reopen the hearing based on the eyewitness’s trial testimony (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031). In any event, that contention is without merit (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the [600]*600defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered September 18, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Griffin, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the suppression hearing should have been reopened based on the trial testimony of the eyewitness who identified the defendant’s car to the arresting officer is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to ask the trial court to reopen the hearing based on the eyewitness’s trial testimony (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031). In any event, that contention is without merit (see CPL 710.40 [4]; People v Clark, 88 NY2d 552, 555). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 599, 748 N.Y.S.2d 688, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hossain-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack