People v. Otero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Otero

279 A.D.2d 355, 718 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 355 (People v. Otero) 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. Otero, 279 A.D.2d 355, 718 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 27, 1998, 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 JVs to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to police testimony, most of which was elicited by defendant on cross-examination, concerning defendant’s employment status and the $10 currency found in his possession upon arrest, are unpreserved or affirmatively waived and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.

Defendant’s objection to the court’s Allen charge is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge was not coercive. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe 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 (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 27, 1998, 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 JVs to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to police testimony, most of which was elicited by defendant on cross-examination, concerning defendant’s employment status and the $10 currency found in his possession upon arrest, are unpreserved or affirmatively waived and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.

Defendant’s objection to the court’s Allen charge is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge was not coercive. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 355, 718 N.Y.S.2d 850, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-otero-nyappdiv-2001.