People v. Desir, 285 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Desir, 285 A.D.2d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Forino (nyappdiv, 2007-04-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Forino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
This contention, however, is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for dismissal at trial on this specific ground (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Dobey, 285 AD2d 655, 656 [2001]; People v Horrego, 280 AD2d 555, 556 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Maelia
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the accomplice was uncorroborated is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move in the trial court for dismissal on this specific ground (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Dobey, 285 AD2d 655, 656 [2001]; People v Horrego, 280 AD2d 555 [2001]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Carl Desir
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 30, 2001.
285 A.D.2d 655
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered February 3, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the search of the vehicle in which he was a passenger was illegal as it was not conducted pursuant to a search warrant and was not a proper inventory search. However, since he was a mere passenger in the vehicle, he lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the receipt from that vehicle (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 165; People v White, 232 AD2d 437, 438).

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the trial court properly admitted testimony of an uncharged crime as it was inextricably interwoven with the crime charged, and its probative value outweighed any possible prejudice (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 241-242; People v Vails, 43 NY2d 364, 368-369; People v Zarvela, 211 AD2d 690; People v Tabora, 139 AD2d 540).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.