From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1992
182 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 2, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira F. Beal, J.).


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). In any event, since the court in these exchanges, was merely clarifying its answers to written questions, and defense counsel was fully aware of the inquiries and given an opportunity in each instance to make a record, it cannot be said that defendant was deprived of a due process right (see, supra).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1992
182 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTONIO PEREZ…

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

Date published: Apr 2, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 116

Citing Cases

People v. Dunham

During the second colloquy, the court restated an element of the crime in response to a juror's question.…