People v. Algarin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Algarin

130 A.D.3d 401, 11 N.Y.S.3d 482

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2015

Docket15600 4335/12

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.3d 401 (People v. Algarin) 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 v. Algarin, 130 A.D.3d 401, 11 N.Y.S.3d 482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), rendered May 28, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2xh to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court erred in its determination that defendant opened the door to a modification of its Sandoval ruling. Nonetheless the error was harmless in light of the remaining overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The verdict 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 jury’s determinations concerning credibility, and its mixed verdict does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]).

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), rendered May 28, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2xh to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court erred in its determination that defendant opened the door to a modification of its Sandoval ruling. Nonetheless the error was harmless in light of the remaining overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The verdict 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 jury’s determinations concerning credibility, and its mixed verdict does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]).

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 401, 11 N.Y.S.3d 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-algarin-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack