People v. Ivory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ivory

27 A.D.2d 844, 277 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 844 (People v. Ivory) 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. Ivory, 27 A.D.2d 844, 277 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 25, 1966, convicting defendant of the sale of narcotics (Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 1) and of possession of narcotics (Penal Law, § 1751-a, subd. 1), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below have not been considered. In our opinion, it was error for the Trial Judge to refuse the request of defendant for instructions to the jury that “if they believe that the defendant was in fact acting on behalf of the buyer, Paduano, acting on his behalf, then they must acquit him of all charges.” The issue of agency of the defendant was presented to the jury under the evidence in the ease and defendant was entitled to the charge (People v. Lindsey, 16 A D 2d 805, affd. 12 N Y 2d 958; People v. Miller, 24 A D 2d 1023). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 25, 1966, convicting defendant of the sale of narcotics (Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 1) and of possession of narcotics (Penal Law, § 1751-a, subd. 1), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The findings of fact below have not been considered. In our opinion, it was error for the Trial Judge to refuse the request of defendant for instructions to the jury that “if they believe that the defendant was in fact acting on behalf of the buyer, Paduano, acting on his behalf, then they must acquit him of all charges.” The issue of agency of the defendant was presented to the jury under the evidence in the ease and defendant was entitled to the charge (People v. Lindsey, 16 A D 2d 805, affd. 12 N Y 2d 958; People v. Miller, 24 A D 2d 1023). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 844, 277 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ivory-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack