People v. Rodriguez

251 A.D.2d 242, 673 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7702
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Rodriguez. Read the opinion of the Court — 220 A.D.2d 208

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleinman, J.), rendered May 18, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s stated reasons for challenging four prospective jurors were pretextual is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Rivera, 225 AD2d 392, lv denied 88 NY2d 969), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that these reasons were pretextual (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

People v. Rodriguez, 251 A.D.2d 242, 673 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

251 A.D.2d 242 (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Allen
653 N.E.2d 1173 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Rivera
225 A.D.2d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)