Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to his accessorial liability is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the inference is inescapable that defendant was a participant in a drug operation, and that he supplied drugs to another participant who, in turn, transferred them to a third participant who sold them to the buyers (see People v Roman,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. DAY
11 A.D.3d 405 (2004)
783 N.Y.S.2d 41
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROY DAY, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
October 28, 2004.
October 28, 2004.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.