People of State of New York v. Middleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People of State of New York v. Middleton

18 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5194

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

DecidedMay 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 282 (People of State of New York v. Middleton) 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. Middleton, 18 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered January 5, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The evidence warrants the conclusion that defendant knew that he had been permanently prohibited from entering the store in question, and that he nevertheless entered the store with the contemporaneous intent to steal. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered January 5, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The evidence warrants the conclusion that defendant knew that he had been permanently prohibited from entering the store in question, and that he nevertheless entered the store with the contemporaneous intent to steal. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 282, 794 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-state-of-new-york-v-middleton-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack