Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. ANGELES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
May 18, 1998
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The trial court acted properly in limiting the cross-examination of an arresting officer at the suppression hearing in order to protect the identity of the confidential informant ( see, People v. Adrion, 82 N.Y.2d 628, 634; People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578, 583-584, cert denied 507 U.S. 1033; People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012; People v. Huggins, 36 N.Y.2d 827; People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 181). In addition, the summary report issued by the court satisfied the requirements of People v. Darden ( supra, at 181).

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions under Indictment No. 3645/94 is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 18-19). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 421; People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt under that indictment was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.