From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Malik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 22, 2004
6 A.D.3d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3466.

Decided April 22, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obus, J. on dismissal motion; Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J. at suppression hearing, jury trial and sentence), rendered April 24, 2002, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Feldman and Feldman, Hauppauge (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Meredith Boylan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.


Defendant's contention that the court never decided his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to testify before the grand jury is unfounded since the transcript of the proceedings of July 9, 2001, reveals that the court considered and denied his motion. The record supports the court's decision, in that the People provided defendant's counsel with adequate notice of the date and time of the scheduled grand jury presentation. The People are not responsible for defendant's failure to remain in touch with his counsel ( People v. Patterson, 270 A.D.2d 120, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 801).

Defendant's contention that the People never disclosed a daily activity report drafted by the arresting officer is unpreserved ( see People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843; People v. Rivera, 78 N.Y.2d 901), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that the report was disclosed by the time of trial, since defense counsel referred to it during cross-examination of the officer. The fact that the People did not disclose the report at the suppression hearing, which defendant never sought to reopen, did not cause defendant any prejudice ( see CPL 240.75).

Defendant's request to relieve counsel and for related relief is denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Malik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 22, 2004
6 A.D.3d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Malik

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RASHEEN MALIK…

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

Date published: Apr 22, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 41

Citing Cases

People v. Shemesh

Contrary to the People's contention, the record shows no lack of diligence by defendant in obtaining new…

People v. Malik

September 16, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 6 AD3d 313 (NY). Application in criminal case for leave to…