People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roman

273 A.D.2d 53, 710 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6387

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

DecidedJune 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 53 (People v. Roman) 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. Roman, 273 A.D.2d 53, 710 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered December 23, 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.

By failing to object, failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his present claims concerning alleged “bolstering” of the undercover officer’s identification, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. The rule against “bolstering” of identification testimony (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471) does not apply to an arresting officer’s testimony concerning an undercover officer’s description of a defendant and confirmatory drive-by identification (see, e.g., People v Hagar, 216 AD2d 119, lv denied 86 NY2d 795). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered December 23, 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.

By failing to object, failing to make specific objections, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his present claims concerning alleged “bolstering” of the undercover officer’s identification, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. The rule against “bolstering” of identification testimony (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471) does not apply to an arresting officer’s testimony concerning an undercover officer’s description of a defendant and confirmatory drive-by identification (see, e.g., People v Hagar, 216 AD2d 119, lv denied 86 NY2d 795). Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 53, 710 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack