People v. Oliva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oliva

127 A.D.2d 706, 511 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43195

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 706 (People v. Oliva) 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. Oliva, 127 A.D.2d 706, 511 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), both rendered January 18, 1985, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 2236/83, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts) under indictment No. 2237/83, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

[707]*707Our review of the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant was not a mere extension of the buyer (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, 53, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930) but, in fact, was a seller of the narcotics involved (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 75, cert denied 439 US 935). Furthermore, the court did not err in admitting evidence of prior drug transactions between the defendant and the buyer, an undercover officer, as this testimony was relevant to determine whether or not the defendant, as contended by him, was the buyer’s agent (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 75, supra). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), both rendered January 18, 1985, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 2236/83, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts) under indictment No. 2237/83, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

[707]*707Our review of the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant was not a mere extension of the buyer (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, 53, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930) but, in fact, was a seller of the narcotics involved (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 75, cert denied 439 US 935). Furthermore, the court did not err in admitting evidence of prior drug transactions between the defendant and the buyer, an undercover officer, as this testimony was relevant to determine whether or not the defendant, as contended by him, was the buyer’s agent (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 75, supra). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 706, 511 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliva-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack