People v. Moran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moran

287 A.D.2d 328, 731 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9622

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 328 (People v. Moran) 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. Moran, 287 A.D.2d 328, 731 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered March 31, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

[329]*329The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of sentencing for the purpose of investigating alleged juror misconduct during deliberations. Defendant did not make a motion to set aside the verdict (CPL 330.30 [2]) or submit an affidavit from any of the three jurors interviewed by defense counsel or offer an explanation for such failure (see, People v Salaam, 187 AD2d 363, 364-365, affd 83 NY2d 51). Moreover, the statements purportedly made by two jurors to the rest of the deliberating panel merely involved everyday life experiences, and not expert knowledge (see, People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 364-367; People v Maragh, 94 NY2d 569, 574). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered March 31, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

[329]*329The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an adjournment of sentencing for the purpose of investigating alleged juror misconduct during deliberations. Defendant did not make a motion to set aside the verdict (CPL 330.30 [2]) or submit an affidavit from any of the three jurors interviewed by defense counsel or offer an explanation for such failure (see, People v Salaam, 187 AD2d 363, 364-365, affd 83 NY2d 51). Moreover, the statements purportedly made by two jurors to the rest of the deliberating panel merely involved everyday life experiences, and not expert knowledge (see, People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 364-367; People v Maragh, 94 NY2d 569, 574). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 328, 731 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moran-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack