In re Stephon L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stephon L.

87 A.D.3d 887, 929 N.Y.2d 490

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 887 (In re Stephon 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 Stephon L., 87 A.D.3d 887, 929 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The 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 determinations concerning credibility. The evidence supports inferences that appellant, either personally or as an accessory under Penal Law § 20.00, committed each of the offenses at issue. Furthermore, although there was evidence relating to two victims, the attempted assault and menacing counts were not duplicitous, either facially or under the facts presented (see People v Wells, 7 NY3d 51, 56-57 [2006]).

Regardless of whether the court should have drawn a missing witness inference with regard to one of the victims, there was no prejudice to appellant, because the court specifically noted that, even if it had drawn an adverse inference, its finding would have been the same. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

The 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 determinations concerning credibility. The evidence supports inferences that appellant, either personally or as an accessory under Penal Law § 20.00, committed each of the offenses at issue. Furthermore, although there was evidence relating to two victims, the attempted assault and menacing counts were not duplicitous, either facially or under the facts presented (see People v Wells, 7 NY3d 51, 56-57 [2006]).

Regardless of whether the court should have drawn a missing witness inference with regard to one of the victims, there was no prejudice to appellant, because the court specifically noted that, even if it had drawn an adverse inference, its finding would have been the same. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Friedman, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 887, 929 N.Y.2d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stephon-l-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack