People v. Derosario

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Perez

    182 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant failed to sustain his burden of showing sufficient privacy interests in the apartment to establish standing to challenge the warrantless police entry, search and seizure (People v Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 358-359). Even if we were to consider the merits of defendant's claim, we would find sufficient exigency to justify the police conduct (People v Derosario, 179 A.D.2d 533; see, People v Cruz, 149 A.D.2d 151, 160). By not timely and specifically objecting to the court's answering of oral questions from the jury during deliberations, defendant's argument that such violated CPL 310.30 is not preserved for review (People v Derosario, supra).

  2. People v. Polanco

    179 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 5 times

    Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ. Smith, J., dissents in part in a memorandum appended to the majority memorandum in People v. Derosario ( 179 A.D.2d 533, 535 [decided herewith]).