People v. Cunny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cunny

279 A.D.2d 309, 718 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 80

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 309 (People v. Cunny) 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. Cunny, 279 A.D.2d 309, 718 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 80 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered November 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of SVs to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the evidence established each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered November 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of SVs to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the evidence established each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 309, 718 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cunny-nyappdiv-2001.