People v. Batista

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Batista

2017 NY Slip Op 1831, 148 A.D.3d 501, 48 N.Y.S.3d 581

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2017

Docket3410 1841/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1831 (People v. Batista) 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. Batista, 2017 NY Slip Op 1831, 148 A.D.3d 501, 48 N.Y.S.3d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 25, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of gang assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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 credibility determinations. An accomplice witness’s testimony was amply corroborated by surveillance videotapes and other evidence.

The court correctly denied defendant’s request to charge second-degree gang assault as a lesser included offense, because there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, that he took part in the attack on the victim but only intended to cause ordinary physical injury instrument (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered November 25, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of gang assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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 credibility determinations. An accomplice witness’s testimony was amply corroborated by surveillance videotapes and other evidence.

The court correctly denied defendant’s request to charge second-degree gang assault as a lesser included offense, because there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, that he took part in the attack on the victim but only intended to cause ordinary physical injury instrument (see People v Rivera, 23 NY3d 112, 120-121 [2014]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1831, 148 A.D.3d 501, 48 N.Y.S.3d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-batista-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack