From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Osorio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 16, 2001
282 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued March 27, 2001

April 16, 2001

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 3, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Frances A. Gallagher of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Joel R. Meyers of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, LEO F. McGINITY, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding certain lines of questioning, and did not deprive him of his "right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense" (People v. Williams, 81 N.Y.2d 303; see also, People v. Sul, 234 A.D.2d 563).

The defendant's argument that two of the counts in the indictment are duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Palaguachi, 210 A.D.2d 436). In any event, the counts, which "[e]ach * * * charge[d] one offense only" (CPL 200.30), were not duplicitous.

O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Osorio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 16, 2001
282 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Osorio

Case Details

Full title:The People, etc., respondent, v. Benjamin Osorio, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 622 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

People v. Morales Saintilus

The defendant's contention that 46 of the counts of the indictment are duplicitous is not preserved for…