People v. Lugo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lugo

256 A.D.2d 16, 680 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12796

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 16 (People v. Lugo) 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. Lugo, 256 A.D.2d 16, 680 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered March 28, 1996, 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.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The People properly established a chain of custody with respect to the drugs underlying the sale count, upon which defendant was convicted, and his arguments concerning the separate drugs underlying the possession count are rendered academic by virtue of the fact that he was not convicted of that count.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered March 28, 1996, 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.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The People properly established a chain of custody with respect to the drugs underlying the sale count, upon which defendant was convicted, and his arguments concerning the separate drugs underlying the possession count are rendered academic by virtue of the fact that he was not convicted of that count.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 16, 680 N.Y.S.2d 843, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lugo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack