People v. Ali

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ali

247 A.D.2d 396, 667 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 800

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 396 (People v. Ali) 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. Ali, 247 A.D.2d 396, 667 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered August 15, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, [397]*397we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered August 15, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, [397]*397we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Mangano, P. J., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 396, 667 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ali-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack