People v. Cephus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cephus

265 A.D.2d 337, 696 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9577

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 337 (People v. Cephus) 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. Cephus, 265 A.D.2d 337, 696 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Minardo, j.), rendered June 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as wéll 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 Kennedy, 185 AD2d 364; People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise [338]*338of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, 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 (Minardo, j.), rendered June 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as wéll 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 Kennedy, 185 AD2d 364; People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise [338]*338of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Altman, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 337, 696 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cephus-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack