People v. Polhill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Polhill

237 A.D.2d 539, 656 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2821

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 539 (People v. Polhill) 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. Polhill, 237 A.D.2d 539, 656 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered May 22, 1995, 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’s challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hammond, 208 AD2d 559). Additionally, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of a defense witness was not improper (see, People v Simpson, 118 AD2d 741; People v Dowd, 115 AD2d 557).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lack merit. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Luciano, 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 (Rios, J.), rendered May 22, 1995, 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’s challenge to the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hammond, 208 AD2d 559). Additionally, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of a defense witness was not improper (see, People v Simpson, 118 AD2d 741; People v Dowd, 115 AD2d 557).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lack merit. Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 539, 656 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-polhill-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack