From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

July 12, 1989

Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's claim that the proof was legally insufficient to disprove the agency defense. Defendant had no previous acquaintance with the buyer and undercover officer. The officer testified that defendant repeatedly referred to the seller as "my man", that defendant knew when the seller would arrive at the parking lot, and that defendant touted the quality of the substance (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 74-75, cert denied 439 U.S. 935; People v Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 85, cert denied 439 U.S. 958).

The trial court did not err in admitting the undercover officer's testimony regarding observations of defendant subsequent to the sale and prior to arrest. The requirements of CPL 710.30 do not apply to inadvertent and casual observations made on a public street by one who previously observed defendant during the transaction at issue (People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552).


Summaries of

People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 12, 1989
152 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Rose

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GARY ROSE, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 12, 1989

Citations

152 A.D.2d 924 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Page

Defendant admittedly had no previous relationship with the buyer, and thus, was assertedly acting on behalf…

People v. Mato

The undercover officer's spontaneous identification of defendant on August 7 as he entered the targeted…