People v. Chan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chan

248 A.D.2d 736, 670 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 736 (People v. Chan) 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. Chan, 248 A.D.2d 736, 670 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered April 7, 1997, convicting him of coercion in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Bolling, 220 AD2d 760). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80; People v Roman, 84 AD2d 851).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Goldstein, 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, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered April 7, 1997, convicting him of coercion in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Bolling, 220 AD2d 760). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80; People v Roman, 84 AD2d 851).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 736, 670 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack