People v. Coombs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coombs

249 A.D.2d 559, 671 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 559 (People v. Coombs) 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. Coombs, 249 A.D.2d 559, 671 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered September 9, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for ap[560]*560pellate review, as his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665; People v Perdomo, 204 AD2d 358; People v Tate, 200 AD2d 602). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, 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 (Fisher, J.), rendered September 9, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for ap[560]*560pellate review, as his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665; People v Perdomo, 204 AD2d 358; People v Tate, 200 AD2d 602). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 559, 671 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coombs-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack