People v. Villanueva

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Villanueva

289 A.D.2d 425, 734 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 7, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, his claim regarding the testimony of one witness stems from questions posed by his own attorney. The defense counsel did not object to or seek to strike any of the challenged responses. The specific objection the defendant now raises with respect to the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), which favorably addressed the defendant’s concerns regarding impeachment, was not raised before the Supreme Court, and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Townley, 245 AD2d 322). Altman, J. P., S. Miller, Crane and Prudenti, 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, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 7, 2000, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, his claim regarding the testimony of one witness stems from questions posed by his own attorney. The defense counsel did not object to or seek to strike any of the challenged responses. The specific objection the defendant now raises with respect to the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371), which favorably addressed the defendant’s concerns regarding impeachment, was not raised before the Supreme Court, and is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Townley, 245 AD2d 322). Altman, J. P., S. Miller, Crane and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

People v. Villanueva, 289 A.D.2d 425, 734 N.Y.S.2d 906, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

289 A.D.2d 425 (People v. Villanueva) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related