Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ryan JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J., at first suppression hearing; Richard Carruthers, J., at second suppression hearing and jury trial), rendered April 11, 1994, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with his codefendants in furtherance of the sale (see, People v. Hill, 198 A.D.2d 100, 603 N.Y.S.2d 829; People v. Williams, 172 A.D.2d 448, 568 N.Y.S.2d 797, affd. 79 N.Y.2d 803, 580 N.Y.S.2d 188, 588 N.E.2d 86). Upon our independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
Defendant's contention that the identification evidence was suggestive has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05[2]; People v. McDonald, 186 A.D.2d 11, 587 N.Y.S.2d 971, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 851, 606 N.Y.S.2d 603, 627 N.E.2d 525), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the confirmatory identifications by the trained undercover narcotics officer, which occurred at a place and time sufficiently connected and contemporaneous to the arrest, constituted the proper completion of an integral police procedure (People v. Wharton, 74 N.Y.2d 921, 550 N.Y.S.2d 260, 549 N.E.2d 462). Although defendant further challenges the credibility of the police officers who testified at the hearings, since he failed to establish that the challenged testimony was manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to common experience or self-contradictory, we decline to disturb the court's conclusion that the testimony was credible (People v. Whitehead, 235 A.D.2d 253, 652 N.Y.S.2d 278).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: August 28, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)