People v. Sam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sam

262 A.D.2d 665, 691 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7582

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, (Kohm, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor failed to disclose Rosario materials (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286) was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Laguer, 195 AD2d 483).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Santucci, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, 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, Queens County, (Kohm, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor failed to disclose Rosario materials (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286) was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Laguer, 195 AD2d 483).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Santucci, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

People v. Sam, 262 A.D.2d 665, 691 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

262 A.D.2d 665 (People v. Sam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related