People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Phillips

269 A.D.2d 610, 703 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2312

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 610 (People v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 269 A.D.2d 610, 703 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant correctly asserts that the undercover police officer’s expert opinion as to how the defendant rid himself of the buy money was improper, as it was not based on either evidence in the record or his personal knowledge (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643). However, in light of the fact that the evidence against the defendant was otherwise overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if not for the error in permitting the testimony, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 (Leach, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant correctly asserts that the undercover police officer’s expert opinion as to how the defendant rid himself of the buy money was improper, as it was not based on either evidence in the record or his personal knowledge (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643). However, in light of the fact that the evidence against the defendant was otherwise overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if not for the error in permitting the testimony, the error was harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 610, 703 N.Y.S.2d 922, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-phillips-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack