People v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosario

280 A.D.2d 424, 721 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1939

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 424 (People v. Rosario) 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. Rosario, 280 A.D.2d 424, 721 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [425]*425Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered March 7, 1997, 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.

After making a thorough inquiry and particularized factual findings, the court properly excluded defendant’s mother and his ex-wife from the courtroom during the trial testimony of the ghost undercover officer, since the record established a “ ‘substantial probability’ ” that the officer’s safety would be jeopardized by their presence in the courtroom (People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 431). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [425]*425Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered March 7, 1997, 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.

After making a thorough inquiry and particularized factual findings, the court properly excluded defendant’s mother and his ex-wife from the courtroom during the trial testimony of the ghost undercover officer, since the record established a “ ‘substantial probability’ ” that the officer’s safety would be jeopardized by their presence in the courtroom (People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 431). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 424, 721 N.Y.S.2d 499, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosario-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack