People v. Milland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Milland

215 A.D.2d 505, 627 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4901

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

DecidedMay 8, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 505 (People v. Milland) 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. Milland, 215 A.D.2d 505, 627 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered May 25, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly questioned him regarding his treatment for drug addiction, that the trial court failed to give the jury proper limiting instructions regarding his prior convictions, and that the verdict sheet was improper. These issues are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Copertino and Altman, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered May 25, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly questioned him regarding his treatment for drug addiction, that the trial court failed to give the jury proper limiting instructions regarding his prior convictions, and that the verdict sheet was improper. These issues are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 505, 627 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-milland-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack