New York Court of Appeals, 1980

People v. Pilgrim

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 16, 1980 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur

52 N.Y.2d 730; 417 N.E.2d 559; 436 N.Y.S.2d 265; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2841

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Cornell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Kronberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Arcuri v. Kirk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
3A Industries, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)
People v. Leftwich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Bailey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Liberators (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Pilgrim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
People v. Pilgrim (New York County Courts 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Counts 1 and 4 of the indictment (criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first and second degrees, respectively) , on which defendant was convicted and that are the subject of this appeal, were submitted to the jury on theories both of completed sale and of agreements to sell *732 (Penal Law, §220.00, subd 1). While no particular instructions were included as to the elements of the transaction required to be proved to establish an agreement to sell, no protest to their omission from the court’s charge was registered by defendant.

The record contains sufficient evidence of transactions in Nassau County to support convictions on the basis of agreements to sell made in that county. The trial court made no error, therefore, when it denied defendant’s application to dismiss the counts on the ground that venue was improperly laid in Nassau County.

Nor may defendant now be heard to complain that the trial court erred in failing to submit the venue issue to the jury for its resolution. In view of the fact, as defendant candidly concedes, that he neither requested such submission nor took exception to the court’s failure to submit the issue to the jury, his claim of error, if any, has not been preserved for our review.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.