From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lacey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.).


The limited expert testimony on the various roles of the participants in street-level narcotics sales, including how their roles may change, was admissible to explain, inter alia, the absence of buy money on this particular defendant and his role in the sale, which involved two other participants ( see, People v. Rivera, 209 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1037). The testimony, which was accompanied by limiting instructions, did not exceed appropriate limits by referring to "managers", or in characterizing defendant as the "manager" of two other participants in a small street-level narcotics operation, since there was no suggestion of a large-scale operation.

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Lacey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Lacey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN LACEY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 16, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 145 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 157

Citing Cases

People v. Smalls

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly admitted limited expert testimony…

People v. Rivera

Defendant's various challenges to police expert testimony regarding street-level narcotics transactions and…