People v. Zonilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zonilla

215 A.D.2d 107, 625 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4653

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

DecidedMay 2, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 107 (People v. Zonilla) 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. Zonilla, 215 A.D.2d 107, 625 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Haft, J., at trial; Alvin Schlesinger, J., at sentencing), rendered October 8, 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 4 V% to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932) defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because defendant failed to raise an objection to the prosecutor’s comments or summation to which he now complains, his claim is not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that they were in fair response to defense counsel’s summation and a fair argument from the record (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Haft, J., at trial; Alvin Schlesinger, J., at sentencing), rendered October 8, 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 4 V% to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932) defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because defendant failed to raise an objection to the prosecutor’s comments or summation to which he now complains, his claim is not preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that they were in fair response to defense counsel’s summation and a fair argument from the record (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 107, 625 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zonilla-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack