People v. Younger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Younger

118 A.D.2d 673, 500 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54538

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 673 (People v. Younger) 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. Younger, 118 A.D.2d 673, 500 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grújales, J.), rendered April 23, 1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order disclosure or production of the confidential informant involved in the undercover purchase of a controlled substance from the defendant (see, People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 169, 173, cert denied 419 US 1012; People v Martinez, 79 AD2d 661, affd 54 NY2d 723; People v Gilmore, 106 AD2d 399). The defendant’s other contentions are not properly before us inas[674]*674much as we previously denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal from an order denying vacatur of the judgment of conviction. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Kunzeman and Kooper, 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 (Grújales, J.), rendered April 23, 1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order disclosure or production of the confidential informant involved in the undercover purchase of a controlled substance from the defendant (see, People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 169, 173, cert denied 419 US 1012; People v Martinez, 79 AD2d 661, affd 54 NY2d 723; People v Gilmore, 106 AD2d 399). The defendant’s other contentions are not properly before us inas[674]*674much as we previously denied the defendant’s application for leave to appeal from an order denying vacatur of the judgment of conviction. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 673, 500 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-younger-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack