People v. Peralta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peralta

270 A.D.2d 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2553

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 38 (People v. Peralta) 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. Peralta, 270 A.D.2d 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered April 29, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

Defendant was not entitled to be present during the court’s postverdict conference with a juror who had recognized a person seated in the courtroom with defendant’s family at which both counsel were present and as to which defendant’s input would not have been meaningful (see, People v Spotford, 85 NY2d 593; People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered April 29, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

Defendant was not entitled to be present during the court’s postverdict conference with a juror who had recognized a person seated in the courtroom with defendant’s family at which both counsel were present and as to which defendant’s input would not have been meaningful (see, People v Spotford, 85 NY2d 593; People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peralta-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack