People v. Osorio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Osorio

282 A.D.2d 622, 722 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 622 (People v. Osorio) 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. Osorio, 282 A.D.2d 622, 722 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding certain lines of questioning, and did not deprive him of his “right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense” (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313; see also, People v Sul, 234 AD2d 563).

The defendant’s argument that two of the counts in the indictment are duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Palaguachi, 210 AD2d 436). In any event, the counts, which “[e]ach * * * charge [d] one offense only” (CPL 200.30 [1]), were not duplicitous. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding certain lines of questioning, and did not deprive him of his “right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense” (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313; see also, People v Sul, 234 AD2d 563).

The defendant’s argument that two of the counts in the indictment are duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Palaguachi, 210 AD2d 436). In any event, the counts, which “[e]ach * * * charge [d] one offense only” (CPL 200.30 [1]), were not duplicitous. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 622, 722 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-osorio-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack