People v. Cruz
Opinion of the Court
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered January 12, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant, acting in concert with Miguel Vasquez and Sylvia Sos
We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings. The record makes clear that the court intervened only to the extent of clarifying confusing testimony and ensuring that defense counsel’s summation did not exceed the four corners of the evidence adduced at the trial. It is the function of the court to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44; People v Robinson, 137 AD2d 564, lv denied 71 NY2d 1032).
The sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive and there are no circumstances present which would warrant disturbing the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
We have reviewed the remainder of the defendant’s contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.