People v. Lapidus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lapidus

262 A.D.2d 72, 689 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6465

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

DecidedJune 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 72 (People v. Lapidus) 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. Lapidus, 262 A.D.2d 72, 689 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [73]*73Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered January 13, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, identification, and defendant’s opportunity to divest herself of drugs and buy money prior to her arrest. The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion that balanced the need for the jury to consider prior crimes and false pedigree information bearing upon defendant’s credibility against the risk of prejudice (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [73]*73Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered January 13, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, identification, and defendant’s opportunity to divest herself of drugs and buy money prior to her arrest. The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion that balanced the need for the jury to consider prior crimes and false pedigree information bearing upon defendant’s credibility against the risk of prejudice (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 72, 689 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lapidus-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack