People v. Tirado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tirado

223 A.D.2d 482, 637 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 524

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 482 (People v. Tirado) 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. Tirado, 223 A.D.2d 482, 637 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 31, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to give proper notice of a jury note requesting instructions is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, no objection having been made when the note was read aloud and answered in the presence of counsel and the jury (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant’s request for a three-hour mid-trial adjournment to secure the attendance of a witness who had been charged with a misdemeanor as part of the same transaction, and who had previously invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, was properly denied, based as it was on the highly speculative notion that the witness would visit the Criminal Court, secure a final disposition of his own case, and be ready to testify within three hours (cf., People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 31, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to give proper notice of a jury note requesting instructions is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, no objection having been made when the note was read aloud and answered in the presence of counsel and the jury (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant’s request for a three-hour mid-trial adjournment to secure the attendance of a witness who had been charged with a misdemeanor as part of the same transaction, and who had previously invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, was properly denied, based as it was on the highly speculative notion that the witness would visit the Criminal Court, secure a final disposition of his own case, and be ready to testify within three hours (cf., People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 482, 637 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tirado-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack