People of State of New York v. Arthur

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People of State of New York v. Arthur

56 A.D.2d 361, 867 N.Y.S.2d 330

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 361 (People of State of New York v. Arthur) 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

People of State of New York v. Arthur, 56 A.D.2d 361, 867 N.Y.S.2d 330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered March 27, 2007, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict, finding that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]), 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 and its evaluation of conflicting expert testimony.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered March 27, 2007, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict, finding that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]), 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 and its evaluation of conflicting expert testimony.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument is without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P, Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 361, 867 N.Y.S.2d 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-state-of-new-york-v-arthur-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack