People v. Monk

Apr 25, 2006
Versions:28 A.D.3d 793
816 N.Y.S.2d 108

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant‘s application for a Darden hearing (see People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]), in light of the fact that one of the confidential informants appeared before the issuing magistrate and gave sworn testimony concerning the events in question (see People v Serrano, 93 NY2d 73, 77 [1999]). The defendant‘s contention, in effect, that the County Court violated the plea agreement by sentencing him without a positive laboratory report is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal because it is based on a matter dehors the record (cf. People v Heffelfinger, 19 AD3d 508, 509 [2005]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.