People v. Lazala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lazala

170 A.D.2d 416, 566 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2420

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 416 (People v. Lazala) 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. Lazala, 170 A.D.2d 416, 566 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered November 17, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 Vi to 9 years and time served, unanimously affirmed.

Whether the accused acted as an agent of the buyer is a question of fact for the jury, and that determination, made "on broad grounds not susceptible of meticulous definition” (People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, 87), will not be disturbed where defendant’s connection to his co-defendant is supported by sufficient evidence. Among other things, defendant’s willing [417]*417acceptance of payment from the undercover officer, despite the co-defendant’s concern that the area was "hot”, established that defendant was not a mere agent.

We also find no merit to defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. At the hearing, defendant argued that he was seized "on a shred,” but the relative distinctiveness of his clothing and that of his co-defendant establishes that the arresting officer acted on descriptions of sufficient detail. (People v Bruce, 78 AD2d 169, 173.) Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered November 17, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 Vi to 9 years and time served, unanimously affirmed.

Whether the accused acted as an agent of the buyer is a question of fact for the jury, and that determination, made "on broad grounds not susceptible of meticulous definition” (People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, 87), will not be disturbed where defendant’s connection to his co-defendant is supported by sufficient evidence. Among other things, defendant’s willing [417]*417acceptance of payment from the undercover officer, despite the co-defendant’s concern that the area was "hot”, established that defendant was not a mere agent.

We also find no merit to defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. At the hearing, defendant argued that he was seized "on a shred,” but the relative distinctiveness of his clothing and that of his co-defendant establishes that the arresting officer acted on descriptions of sufficient detail. (People v Bruce, 78 AD2d 169, 173.) Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 416, 566 N.Y.S.2d 292, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lazala-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack