People v. Jabbar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jabbar

278 A.D.2d 167, 718 N.Y.S.2d 179, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13826

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 167 (People v. Jabbar) 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. Jabbar, 278 A.D.2d 167, 718 N.Y.S.2d 179, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, 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 court properly exercised its discretion when it precluded defendant from attempting to impeach a witness with a purported inconsistency, which was not, in fact, inconsistent (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 US 910). In any event, the court’s ruling did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli 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 (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, 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 court properly exercised its discretion when it precluded defendant from attempting to impeach a witness with a purported inconsistency, which was not, in fact, inconsistent (see, People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74, 80-81, cert denied 442 US 910). In any event, the court’s ruling did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not warrant reversal. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 167, 718 N.Y.S.2d 179, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jabbar-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack