People v. Mackey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mackey

303 A.D.2d 279, 755 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2770

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 279 (People v. Mackey) 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. Mackey, 303 A.D.2d 279, 755 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered March 5, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s interjections into the People’s presentation of evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886 [1982]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that the court’s conduct did not rise to the level of judicial interference warranting reversal (see People v Reid, 296 AD2d 335 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 731 [2002]; People v Smith, 251 AD2d 226 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 930 [1998]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered March 5, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s interjections into the People’s presentation of evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886 [1982]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that the court’s conduct did not rise to the level of judicial interference warranting reversal (see People v Reid, 296 AD2d 335 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 731 [2002]; People v Smith, 251 AD2d 226 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 930 [1998]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 279, 755 N.Y.S.2d 614, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mackey-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack