People v. Salvidar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salvidar

268 A.D.2d 263, 700 N.Y.S.2d 700, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 263 (People v. Salvidar) 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. Salvidar, 268 A.D.2d 263, 700 N.Y.S.2d 700, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [264]*264Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered April 3, 1998, 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 suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant’s claims concerning the suppression hearing determination are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the arresting officer was justified in relying on the transmissions of another officer who had observed the entire drug transaction and remained in the area to direct the arrests (see, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416). There was “no uncertainty concerning the identity of the individuals participating in the drug transaction”. (People v Amoateng, 141 AD2d 398, 400, lv denied 73 NY2d 852.)

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of defendant’s conduct during the sale, including his response to the undercover officer’s request to purchase drugs, warranted a reasonable inference that defendant was a participant in the sale. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [264]*264Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered April 3, 1998, 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 suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant’s claims concerning the suppression hearing determination are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the arresting officer was justified in relying on the transmissions of another officer who had observed the entire drug transaction and remained in the area to direct the arrests (see, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416). There was “no uncertainty concerning the identity of the individuals participating in the drug transaction”. (People v Amoateng, 141 AD2d 398, 400, lv denied 73 NY2d 852.)

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of defendant’s conduct during the sale, including his response to the undercover officer’s request to purchase drugs, warranted a reasonable inference that defendant was a participant in the sale. Concur—Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 263, 700 N.Y.S.2d 700, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salvidar-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack