People v. Julian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Julian

282 A.D.2d 400, 723 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4126

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

DecidedApril 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 400 (People v. Julian) 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. Julian, 282 A.D.2d 400, 723 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered October 4, 1999, 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.

, Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge and the prosecutor’s remarks regarding the agency defense are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that under the facts presented the court properly delivered the standard charge (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 74-75, cert denied [401]*401439 US 935), and that the prosecutor’s remarks tracking that charge were likewise appropriate. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Buckley 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 (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered October 4, 1999, 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.

, Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge and the prosecutor’s remarks regarding the agency defense are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that under the facts presented the court properly delivered the standard charge (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 74-75, cert denied [401]*401439 US 935), and that the prosecutor’s remarks tracking that charge were likewise appropriate. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 400, 723 N.Y.S.2d 672, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-julian-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack