People v. Prinzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Prinzo

261 A.D.2d 254, 687 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5484

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

DecidedMay 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 254 (People v. Prinzo) 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. Prinzo, 261 A.D.2d 254, 687 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, 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 third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

[255]*255Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant’s claim that he was arrested on the basis of an insufficient description is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the description was sufficiently specific given the close spatial and temporal proximity of the arrest to the crime. The undercover officer testified that he had defendant in view at the time of the initial detention and communicated that fact to the arresting officer by radio.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Defendant’s claim that his sentence was based on improper criteria is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it unsupported by the record. The Trial Judge considered the appropriate factors in imposing a sentence slightly above the minimum. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, 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 (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered September 15, 1997, 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 third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

[255]*255Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant’s claim that he was arrested on the basis of an insufficient description is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the description was sufficiently specific given the close spatial and temporal proximity of the arrest to the crime. The undercover officer testified that he had defendant in view at the time of the initial detention and communicated that fact to the arresting officer by radio.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Defendant’s claim that his sentence was based on improper criteria is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it unsupported by the record. The Trial Judge considered the appropriate factors in imposing a sentence slightly above the minimum. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 254, 687 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-prinzo-nyappdiv-1999.