People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortega

270 A.D.2d 137, 705 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 137 (People v. Ortega) 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. Ortega, 270 A.D.2d 137, 705 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Background testimony by one of the undercover officers regarding the organization of street-level drug sales and the tactics of drug dealers was properly admitted (see, People v McAllister, 255 AD2d 241, lv denied 93 NY2d 876), since the testimony was warranted by the evidence, was brief and limited, and carried no suggestion of large-scale drug activity. Defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation refer[138]*138enees to the expert testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged portions of the summation were responsive to defendant’s summation. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered May 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Background testimony by one of the undercover officers regarding the organization of street-level drug sales and the tactics of drug dealers was properly admitted (see, People v McAllister, 255 AD2d 241, lv denied 93 NY2d 876), since the testimony was warranted by the evidence, was brief and limited, and carried no suggestion of large-scale drug activity. Defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation refer[138]*138enees to the expert testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged portions of the summation were responsive to defendant’s summation. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 137, 705 N.Y.S.2d 343, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortega-nyappdiv-2000.