People v. Pilgrim, 417 N.E.2d 559 (N.Y. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Pilgrim, 417 N.E.2d 559 (N.Y. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Cornell, 17 A.D.3d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2005)
How cited ↗
Cited for
52 N.Y.2d at 732 Failure to preserve venue challenge for review1 citing case(Penal Law, §220.00, subd 1). While no particular instructions were included as to the elements of the transaction required to be proved to establish an…opening of page *732 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Cornell, 17 A.D.3d 1010 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2005).published
    By failing to move to dismiss the count of rape that occurred in Monroe County on the ground of improper venue or to request a jury charge on venue, defendant failed to preserve for our review (see People v Pilgrim, 52 NY2d 730, 732 [1980]…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John Pilgrim, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 16, 1980.
Published opinion
417 N.E.2d 559
1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2841
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael J. Obus and Matthew Muraskin for appellant., Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Robert M. Nigro and William C. Donnino of counsel), for respondent.
Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Counts 1 and 4 of the indictment (criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees, respectively) , on which defendant was convicted and that are the subject of this appeal, were submitted to the jury on theories both of completed sale and of agreements to sell[*732] (Penal Law, §220.00, subd 1). While no particular instructions were included as to the elements of the transaction required to be proved to establish an agreement to sell, no protest to their omission from the court’s charge was registered by defendant.

The record contains sufficient evidence of transactions in Nassau County to support convictions on the basis of agreements to sell made in that county. The trial court made no error, therefore, when it denied defendant’s application to dismiss the counts on the ground that venue was improperly laid in Nassau County.

Nor may defendant now be heard to complain that the trial court erred in failing to submit the venue issue to the jury for its resolution. In view of the fact, as defendant candidly concedes, that he neither requested such submission nor took exception to the court’s failure to submit the issue to the jury, his claim of error, if any, has not been preserved for our review.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.