People v. Berryhill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Berryhill

123 A.D.2d 777, 507 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60911

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 777 (People v. Berryhill) 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. Berryhill, 123 A.D.2d 777, 507 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Vitale, J.), rendered December 16, 1981, convicting him of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Justice Lawrence has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although there were some inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, those inconsistencies were minor and we decline to find the testimony incredible as a matter of law. We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, 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, Nassau County (Vitale, J.), rendered December 16, 1981, convicting him of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Justice Lawrence has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Although there were some inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, those inconsistencies were minor and we decline to find the testimony incredible as a matter of law. We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 777, 507 N.Y.S.2d 603, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-berryhill-nyappdiv-1986.