From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued October 1, 1999

November 8, 1999

David R. Kliegman, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered April 17, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the jury charge regarding interested witnesses was unbalanced is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Rodriguez, 258 A.D.2d 537 [2d Dept., Feb. 8. 1999]). In any event, the interested witness charge was balanced and adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards for evaluating a witness's testimony (see, People v. Rodriguez, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

FRIEDMANN, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Harding

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. JOHN HARDING, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 519

Citing Cases

State v. Jean-Baptiste

The defendant's contention that the trial court gave an unbalanced interested witness charge by failing to…

Rasmussen v. Filion

In affirming his conviction, the state court disposed of these claims as follows: Defendant's contention that…