People v. Jadusingh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jadusingh

217 A.D.2d 667, 630 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8116

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 667 (People v. Jadusingh) 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. Jadusingh, 217 A.D.2d 667, 630 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered January 15, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of a defense witness regarding her failure to timely come forward with exculpatory information was proper pursuant to People v Dawson (50 NY2d 311).

The defendant’s remaining contention, challenging the court’s charge to the jury relating to the cross-examination of this witness, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and, in any event, without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered January 15, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of a defense witness regarding her failure to timely come forward with exculpatory information was proper pursuant to People v Dawson (50 NY2d 311).

The defendant’s remaining contention, challenging the court’s charge to the jury relating to the cross-examination of this witness, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and, in any event, without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 667, 630 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jadusingh-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack