People v. Ariza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ariza

114 A.D.3d 607, 980 N.Y.S.2d 763

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 607 (People v. Ariza) 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. Ariza, 114 A.D.3d 607, 980 N.Y.S.2d 763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered September 14, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that 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 identification, including its evaluation of any inconsistencies. Defendant was identified by the victim, as well as by a witness who was acquainted with defendant. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered September 14, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that 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 identification, including its evaluation of any inconsistencies. Defendant was identified by the victim, as well as by a witness who was acquainted with defendant. Concur — Tom, J.P, Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 607, 980 N.Y.S.2d 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ariza-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack