People v. Tevaha

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Tevaha

644 N.E.2d 1342, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3370

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by150 cases

This text of 644 N.E.2d 1342 (People v. Tevaha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Tevaha, 644 N.E.2d 1342, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3370 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant’s sole claim of error — that he was denied a fair

*881 trial when the court permitted testimony by the arresting officer regarding the general practices of drug sellers — has not been preserved for our review. Defense counsel simply made a general objection when the testimony was proffered, and failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for his objection. The word "objection” alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947, 948; People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant’s sole claim of error — that he was denied a fair

*881 trial when the court permitted testimony by the arresting officer regarding the general practices of drug sellers — has not been preserved for our review. Defense counsel simply made a general objection when the testimony was proffered, and failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for his objection. The word "objection” alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947, 948; People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 N.E.2d 1342, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 620 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tevaha-ny-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack