People v. Cowan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cowan

262 A.D.2d 421, 689 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6265

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 421 (People v. Cowan) 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. Cowan, 262 A.D.2d 421, 689 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 8, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well 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 Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to inquire about various prior convictions without eliciting the underlying facts, as well as allowing inquiry into the defendant’s use of false pedigree information, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Harris, 190 AD2d 864; People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, 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 July 8, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well 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 Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to inquire about various prior convictions without eliciting the underlying facts, as well as allowing inquiry into the defendant’s use of false pedigree information, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Harris, 190 AD2d 864; People v Scott, 118 AD2d 881). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 421, 689 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cowan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack