People v. Yates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yates

191 A.D.2d 195, 595 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D.2d 195 (People v. Yates) 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. Yates, 191 A.D.2d 195, 595 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered May 15, 1991, 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.

Defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the undercover officer concerning police "sweeps” is unpreserved for appellate review, there being nothing in the record to explain the relevance and materiality of this proposed line of inquiry (People v Trinidad, 177 AD2d 286, lv denied 79 NY2d 865). If we were to review in the interest of justice, we would find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion (supra) and that it afforded defense counsel sufficient scope within which to prove its defense. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered May 15, 1991, 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.

Defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the undercover officer concerning police "sweeps” is unpreserved for appellate review, there being nothing in the record to explain the relevance and materiality of this proposed line of inquiry (People v Trinidad, 177 AD2d 286, lv denied 79 NY2d 865). If we were to review in the interest of justice, we would find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion (supra) and that it afforded defense counsel sufficient scope within which to prove its defense. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 195, 595 N.Y.S.2d 675, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yates-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack