Summary
holding that a general objection, which fails to specify the claimed error, is insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review
Summary of this case from Crowder v. GreenOpinion
Decided October 20, 1994
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Franklin R. Weissberg, J.
Laura Burde, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Daniel A. Lowenthal, III, and Joseph J. Dawson of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant's sole claim of error — that he was denied a fair trial when the court permitted testimony by the arresting officer regarding the general practices of drug sellers — has not been preserved for our review. Defense counsel simply made a general objection when the testimony was proffered, and failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for his objection. The word "objection" alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 948; People v West, 56 N.Y.2d 662, 663).
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.