People v. Paige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paige

241 A.D.2d 918, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7851

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 918 (People v. Paige) 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. Paige, 241 A.D.2d 918, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Hryckewicz, 221 AD2d 990, lv denied 88 NY2d 849), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct is without merit. The single statement in the prosecutor’s summation to which defendant objects did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Bogue, 234 AD2d 946; People v Scott, 181 AD2d 995, lv denied 80 NY2d 837). (Appeal from Judg[919]*919ment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Hryckewicz, 221 AD2d 990, lv denied 88 NY2d 849), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct is without merit. The single statement in the prosecutor’s summation to which defendant objects did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Bogue, 234 AD2d 946; People v Scott, 181 AD2d 995, lv denied 80 NY2d 837). (Appeal from Judg[919]*919ment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 918, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paige-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack