Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. GELIGAS, 2600 [1st Dept 2003

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Dec 30, 2003
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included screening potential customers ( see People v. Bello, 92 N.Y.2d 523).

Defendant failed to preserve his claims concerning police testimony as to the roles of participants in street-level narcotics sales ( see People v. Harris, 98 N.Y.2d 452, 492; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them ( see People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 506-507).

We find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated.

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