People v. Vargar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vargar

293 A.D.2d 359, 742 N.Y.S.2d 193, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854

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

DecidedApril 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 359 (People v. Vargar) 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. Vargar, 293 A.D.2d 359, 742 N.Y.S.2d 193, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered March 22, 2000, 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 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations. Defendant points to minor inconsistencies or discrepancies which in no way undermine the testimony of the undercover officers.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the unidentified token booth clerk was knowledgeable about any material issue in this case (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428; see also, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532). Although the drug exchange took place in the vicinity of a token booth, the subway station was very busy and there was no evidence whatsoever that the clerk had any view of the drug transaction. Furthermore, there was no prima facie showing of “control” for the purpose of a missing witness charge (see, People v Gonzalez, supra). The clerk was not employed by a law enforcement agency and had no relationship to the prosecution that would warrant a finding of “control.” Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered March 22, 2000, 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 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations. Defendant points to minor inconsistencies or discrepancies which in no way undermine the testimony of the undercover officers.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the unidentified token booth clerk was knowledgeable about any material issue in this case (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428; see also, People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532). Although the drug exchange took place in the vicinity of a token booth, the subway station was very busy and there was no evidence whatsoever that the clerk had any view of the drug transaction. Furthermore, there was no prima facie showing of “control” for the purpose of a missing witness charge (see, People v Gonzalez, supra). The clerk was not employed by a law enforcement agency and had no relationship to the prosecution that would warrant a finding of “control.” Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 359, 742 N.Y.S.2d 193, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vargar-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack