People v. Matea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matea

13 A.D.3d 161, 785 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15052

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 161 (People v. Matea) 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. Matea, 13 A.D.3d 161, 785 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered May 30, 2002, 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 court properly modified its original Sandoval ruling by permitting a very limited, nonprejudicial inquiry about narcotics possession after determining that defendant opened the door to such a modification (see People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638 [1993]; People v Santiago, 169 AD2d 557, 558 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 1000 [1991]). A statement in defendant’s direct testimony created a misleading impression about his criminal history, and did not simply address the instant charges. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered May 30, 2002, 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 court properly modified its original Sandoval ruling by permitting a very limited, nonprejudicial inquiry about narcotics possession after determining that defendant opened the door to such a modification (see People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638 [1993]; People v Santiago, 169 AD2d 557, 558 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 1000 [1991]). A statement in defendant’s direct testimony created a misleading impression about his criminal history, and did not simply address the instant charges. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 161, 785 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matea-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack