People v. Pinera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pinera

235 A.D.2d 271, 652 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 271 (People v. Pinera) 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. Pinera, 235 A.D.2d 271, 652 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered June 29, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4½ to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly refused to sanction the People for failing to produce a data sheet is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant did not specify the type of relief demanded (see, People v Pabon, 213 AD2d 289, lv denied 86 NY2d 739) and, in any event, failed to pursue his claim after the court invited further argument (see, People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 900). We decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that a sanction was not warranted since the record does not establish that the data sheet had ever existed (see, People v Damaceno, 214 AD2d 464, lv denied 86 NY2d 734). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered June 29, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4½ to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly refused to sanction the People for failing to produce a data sheet is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant did not specify the type of relief demanded (see, People v Pabon, 213 AD2d 289, lv denied 86 NY2d 739) and, in any event, failed to pursue his claim after the court invited further argument (see, People v Jackson, 78 NY2d 900). We decline to review his claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that a sanction was not warranted since the record does not establish that the data sheet had ever existed (see, People v Damaceno, 214 AD2d 464, lv denied 86 NY2d 734). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 271, 652 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinera-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack