People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriguez

257 A.D.2d 669, 682 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 583

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Rodriguez) 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. Rodriguez, 257 A.D.2d 669, 682 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered November 16, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly granted the People’s challenge for cause (see, CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 77-78).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s remarks in summation require reversal, as well as the issues raised in his supplemental pro se brief are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Miller, 183 AD2d 790, 791), and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Krausman 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, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered November 16, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly granted the People’s challenge for cause (see, CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; People v Blyden, 55 NY2d 73, 77-78).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s remarks in summation require reversal, as well as the issues raised in his supplemental pro se brief are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v Miller, 183 AD2d 790, 791), and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 669, 682 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack