People v. Moolenaar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moolenaar

300 A.D.2d 214, 751 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13326

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 214 (People v. Moolenaar) 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. Moolenaar, 300 A.D.2d 214, 751 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered December 7, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

[215]*215The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding, on the ground of remoteness, evidence offered by defendant purporting to show that the officers involved in his arrest may have had a reason for being biased against him (see People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 105). The proffered evidence involved defendant’s interactions with police from the precinct where the arrest occurred. However, all of the officers involved in this case were members of a narcotics unit which, while operating in that precinct (and elsewhere), was a completely separate command. Defendant offered no explanation of how these narcotics officers would have any knowledge of defendant or of his prior altercations with officers from the local precinct. Accordingly, the court’s discretionary determination did not violate defendant’s right to present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Williams, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered December 7, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

[215]*215The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding, on the ground of remoteness, evidence offered by defendant purporting to show that the officers involved in his arrest may have had a reason for being biased against him (see People v Thomas, 46 NY2d 100, 105). The proffered evidence involved defendant’s interactions with police from the precinct where the arrest occurred. However, all of the officers involved in this case were members of a narcotics unit which, while operating in that precinct (and elsewhere), was a completely separate command. Defendant offered no explanation of how these narcotics officers would have any knowledge of defendant or of his prior altercations with officers from the local precinct. Accordingly, the court’s discretionary determination did not violate defendant’s right to present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Williams, P.J., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 214, 751 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moolenaar-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack