People v. Tan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tan

247 A.D.2d 285, 668 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1542

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 285 (People v. Tan) 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. Tan, 247 A.D.2d 285, 668 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered June 20, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal [286]*286sale of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s questioning of a witness was reasonably limited to clarifying the People’s prior confusing questions and eliciting relevant facts (People v Rivera, 201 AD2d 385, lv denied 83 NY2d 914). Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s missing witness instruction, read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate standards.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered June 20, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal [286]*286sale of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life and 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s questioning of a witness was reasonably limited to clarifying the People’s prior confusing questions and eliciting relevant facts (People v Rivera, 201 AD2d 385, lv denied 83 NY2d 914). Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s missing witness instruction, read as a whole, conveyed the appropriate standards.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 285, 668 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack