People v. Brazeal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brazeal

233 A.D.2d 519, 650 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12968

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 519 (People v. Brazeal) 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. Brazeal, 233 A.D.2d 519, 650 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered January 31, 1995, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[520]*520The defendant contends that because there was evidence that the complainant’s injury was inflicted inadvertently during the course of a struggle and because the complainant had a motive to lie, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, 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, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, 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, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered January 31, 1995, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[520]*520The defendant contends that because there was evidence that the complainant’s injury was inflicted inadvertently during the course of a struggle and because the complainant had a motive to lie, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, 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, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 519, 650 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brazeal-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack