People v. Rodriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriquez

76 A.D.2d 937, 432 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12046

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

DecidedJune 30, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 937 (People v. Rodriquez) 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. Rodriquez, 76 A.D.2d 937, 432 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 30, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant, in raising the defense of agency for the first time on appeal, has waived appellate review of this issue as a matter of law (see CPL 470.05, subd 2; People v Darrisaw, 49 NY2d 786). We find nothing in the record before us warranting our review as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15, subd 5; People v Sims, 45 AD2d 747, affd 37 NY2d 906). We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 30, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant, in raising the defense of agency for the first time on appeal, has waived appellate review of this issue as a matter of law (see CPL 470.05, subd 2; People v Darrisaw, 49 NY2d 786). We find nothing in the record before us warranting our review as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15, subd 5; People v Sims, 45 AD2d 747, affd 37 NY2d 906). We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 937, 432 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriquez-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack