People v. Mayers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mayers

233 A.D.2d 407, 650 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11520

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 407 (People v. Mayers) 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. Mayers, 233 A.D.2d 407, 650 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.), rendered March 16, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The disclosure form served by the People at the defendant’s arraignment, which specified the date, time, place, and man[408]*408ner of identification by the confidential informant, provided the defendant with appropriate notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (see, e.g., People v Collins, 60 NY2d 214; People v Bowman, 211 AD2d 590; People v Ocasio, 183 AD2d 921).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.), rendered March 16, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The disclosure form served by the People at the defendant’s arraignment, which specified the date, time, place, and man[408]*408ner of identification by the confidential informant, provided the defendant with appropriate notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) (see, e.g., People v Collins, 60 NY2d 214; People v Bowman, 211 AD2d 590; People v Ocasio, 183 AD2d 921).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 407, 650 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mayers-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack