People v. Caporizzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caporizzo

111 A.D.2d 929, 490 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50197

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

DecidedJune 24, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 929 (People v. Caporizzo) 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. Caporizzo, 111 A.D.2d 929, 490 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), [930]*930rendered May 27, 1975, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. In reviewing the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, the standard to be applied is whether, after viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). The evidence adduced by the People met this standard; the minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony did not undermine her credibility (see, People v Concepcion, 38 NY2d 211). As the fact finder, the trial court was fully aware of the discrepancies existing in the testimony of witnesses for both sides. As such, we see no reason to disturb the verdict rendered by the trial court, for it was fully supported by the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Rosenfeld, 93 AD2d 872; People v Rodriguez, 72 AD2d 571). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), [930]*930rendered May 27, 1975, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. In reviewing the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, the standard to be applied is whether, after viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). The evidence adduced by the People met this standard; the minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony did not undermine her credibility (see, People v Concepcion, 38 NY2d 211). As the fact finder, the trial court was fully aware of the discrepancies existing in the testimony of witnesses for both sides. As such, we see no reason to disturb the verdict rendered by the trial court, for it was fully supported by the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Rosenfeld, 93 AD2d 872; People v Rodriguez, 72 AD2d 571). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 929, 490 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caporizzo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack