People v. Caballero (Miguel)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 2016
Docket2016 NYSlipOp 51550(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Caballero (Miguel) (People v. Caballero (Miguel)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Caballero (Miguel), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion



The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Miguel Caballero, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered May 21, 2014, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered May 21, 2014, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility. The court, as factfinder, reasonably could conclude that when defendant - who was angry at complainants because of an immediately preceding incident at defendant's apartment - followed complainants to a subway station, repeatedly punched complainant Clinton Murray in the face and threatened him with further harm, he did so with intent to place Clinton in fear of "imminent serious physical injury or physical injury" (Penal Law § 120.15; Matter of Denzel F., 44 AD3d 389, 390 [2007]) and to "harass, annoy or alarm" him (Penal Law 240.26[1]; see People v Correa, 75 AD3d 478, 479 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 892 [2010]). Although there were certain inconsistencies between complainants' testimony and the police report, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily issues to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v David W., 156 AD2d 605, 606 [1989], lv denied 76 NY2d 744 [1990]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 25, 2016

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

Related

In re Denzel F.
44 A.D.3d 389 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Correa
75 A.D.3d 478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Caballero (Miguel), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caballero-miguel-nyappterm-2016.