People v. Clinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clinton

280 A.D.2d 426, 721 N.Y.S.2d 501, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1900

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 426 (People v. Clinton) 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. Clinton, 280 A.D.2d 426, 721 N.Y.S.2d 501, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J., at suppression hearing; Edward McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 20, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and [427]*427fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years and 2V2 to 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J., at suppression hearing; Edward McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 20, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and [427]*427fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years and 2V2 to 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 426, 721 N.Y.S.2d 501, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clinton-nyappdiv-2001.