In re Dorian L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dorian L.

92 A.D.3d 530, 939 N.Y.2d 345

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 16, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 530 (In re Dorian L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Dorian L., 92 A.D.3d 530, 939 N.Y.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[531]*531The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the extent the court erred in denying appellant’s request for a missing witness charge, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt (see People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761 [1990]; People v Abelson, 27 AD3d 301 [2006]). Appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[531]*531The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the extent the court erred in denying appellant’s request for a missing witness charge, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt (see People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761 [1990]; People v Abelson, 27 AD3d 301 [2006]). Appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 530, 939 N.Y.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dorian-l-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack