Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antonio Tevaha, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-10-20
Citations: 84 N.Y.2d 879
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Tevaha, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 879–881

Head Matter:
[644 NE2d 1342, 620 NYS2d 786]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Tevaha, Appellant.
Decided October 20, 1994
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Laura Burde, New York City, and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Daniel A. Lowenthal, III, and Joseph J. Dawson of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant's sole claim of error — that he was denied a fair
trial when the court permitted testimony by the arresting officer regarding the general practices of drug sellers — has not been preserved for our review. Defense counsel simply made a general objection when the testimony was proffered, and failed to advise the trial court that the present claimed error was the basis for his objection. The word "objection" alone was insufficient to preserve the issue for our review (see, People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947, 948; People v West, 56 NY2d 662, 663).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.