# People v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · January 11, 1994 · 200 A.D.2d 416

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5970054

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. David Brown
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** January 11, 1994
- **Citations:** 200 A.D.2d 416; 606 N.Y.S.2d 214; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5970054

## Opinion text

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.) rendered May 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of AVz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
Police, on anti-narcotics patrol, observed defendant from a rooftop as defendant engaged in multiple hand-to-hand exchanges. After one exchange, defendant walked to a nearby firebox, pulled out a brown bag, extracted something from the bag, and returned the bag to the firebox. Moments later, police responded, a patdown of defendant recovered a roll of cash, and the bag in the firebox was found to contain 82 vials of crack. Under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley ( 69 NY2d 490, 495 ), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence. Defendant’s evidentiary challenges, in part, are unpreserved; they are all meritless. Testimony that defendant had engaged in hand-to-hand exchanges, and references to the area as a drug prone location, provided narrative information explaining why police targeted defendant for observation (People v Rivera, 186 AD2d 504, 505 ). Since defendant never requested a limiting instruction at trial, that claim also is unpreserved (People v Diaz, 170 AD2d 395 , lv denied 78 NY2d 954 ). By failing to challenge the competence of trial counsel pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant failed to provide this Court with a reviewable record. On the *417 basis of the present record, we do not find that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 ; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5970054. Public record. Not legal advice.