People v. Khan

2 A.D.3d 461, 767 N.Y.S.2d 823
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 461 (People v. Khan) 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. Khan, 2 A.D.3d 461, 767 N.Y.S.2d 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered November 28, 2000, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in replacing a sworn juror who had been struck by a car and reported to the court’s law secretary that she was medically unable to continue her jury service. Upon learning of the juror’s accident, the court initially adjourned the case for a day. However, the next day, after another telephone conversation with the court’s law secretary confirmed that the juror would be unable to serve, the court replaced her with an alternate juror without any objection from the defense counsel. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not improperly delegate its obligation to make “a reasonably thorough inquiry” regarding the juror’s unavailability (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]; see People v Jeanty, 94 NY2d 507 [2000]; People v Bruno, 295 AD2d 228 [2002]; People v Ortiz, 286 AD2d 781 [2001]).

The contention in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief that the court erroneously admitted a tape recorded conversation between him and a deceased confidential informant into evidence is without merit (cf. People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527-528 [1986]; see People v Rawlins, 105 AD2d 552 [1984]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Haji v. Miller
584 F. Supp. 2d 498 (E.D. New York, 2008)
Khan v. Fischer
583 F. Supp. 2d 390 (E.D. New York, 2008)
People v. Khan
33 A.D.3d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Haji
2 A.D.3d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 461, 767 N.Y.S.2d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-khan-nyappdiv-2003.