Morales v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. State

282 A.D.2d 245, 722 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3558

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

DecidedApril 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 245 (Morales v. State) 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

Morales v. State, 282 A.D.2d 245, 722 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Court of Claims, New York County (Alan Marin, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2000, after trial, dismissing a claim under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act (Court of Claims Act § 8-b), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s finding, largely one of credibility (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Vinciguerra v State of New York, 262 AD2d 743, 744), that claimant failed to meet his “heavy burden of proving [his] innocence by clear and convincing proof’ (Reed, v State of New York, 78 NY2d 1, 11; see, Taylor v State of New York, 266 AD2d 385, lv denied 94 NY2d 764). We have considered and rejected claimant’s argument that the trial court erred in excluding certain out-of-court statements made by the complaining witness at claimant’s criminal trial. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Andrias, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Court of Claims, New York County (Alan Marin, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2000, after trial, dismissing a claim under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act (Court of Claims Act § 8-b), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s finding, largely one of credibility (see, Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Vinciguerra v State of New York, 262 AD2d 743, 744), that claimant failed to meet his “heavy burden of proving [his] innocence by clear and convincing proof’ (Reed, v State of New York, 78 NY2d 1, 11; see, Taylor v State of New York, 266 AD2d 385, lv denied 94 NY2d 764). We have considered and rejected claimant’s argument that the trial court erred in excluding certain out-of-court statements made by the complaining witness at claimant’s criminal trial. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Andrias, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 245, 722 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-state-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack