People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. King

280 A.D.2d 614, 720 N.Y.S.2d 827, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1640

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 614 (People v. King) 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. King, 280 A.D.2d 614, 720 N.Y.S.2d 827, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 11, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to object, request curative instructions, or otherwise alert the trial court to the alleged deficiency in its instructions to the jury concerning prior inconsistent statements, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Minor, 124 AD2d 601, 602; People v Wolcott, 111 AD2d 513, 515). In any event, the defendant’s contention lacks merit.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, 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 (Finnegan, J.), rendered May 11, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant failed to object, request curative instructions, or otherwise alert the trial court to the alleged deficiency in its instructions to the jury concerning prior inconsistent statements, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Minor, 124 AD2d 601, 602; People v Wolcott, 111 AD2d 513, 515). In any event, the defendant’s contention lacks merit.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., H. Miller, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 614, 720 N.Y.S.2d 827, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-king-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack