People v. Montalvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Montalvo

249 A.D.2d 203, 671 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657

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

DecidedApril 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 203 (People v. Montalvo) 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. Montalvo, 249 A.D.2d 203, 671 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly refused defendant’s request to qualify a backup officer as an expert witness. Defendant’s offer of proof did not establish that the proposed expert testimony required “ ‘professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror’ ” (People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288).

Defendant’s challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge was not raised before the trial court and is therefore unpreserved for review (People v Shaw, 90 NY2d 879), and is also premature (People v Ramirez, 208 AD2d 381, lv denied 84 NY2d 1037). We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly refused defendant’s request to qualify a backup officer as an expert witness. Defendant’s offer of proof did not establish that the proposed expert testimony required “ ‘professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror’ ” (People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288).

Defendant’s challenge to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge was not raised before the trial court and is therefore unpreserved for review (People v Shaw, 90 NY2d 879), and is also premature (People v Ramirez, 208 AD2d 381, lv denied 84 NY2d 1037). We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 203, 671 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-montalvo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack