People v. Curnen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Curnen

78 A.D.3d 1192, 911 N.Y.S.2d 644

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 1192 (People v. Curnen) 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. Curnen, 78 A.D.3d 1192, 911 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered June 24, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly denied his application to dismiss a juror pursuant to CPL 270.35 is without merit because the juror stated unequivocally that he would remain fair and impartial (see People v Davis, 248 AD2d 632 [1998]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of [1193]*1193the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Daniel-son, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Austin, 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 County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered June 24, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly denied his application to dismiss a juror pursuant to CPL 270.35 is without merit because the juror stated unequivocally that he would remain fair and impartial (see People v Davis, 248 AD2d 632 [1998]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of [1193]*1193the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Daniel-son, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 1192, 911 N.Y.S.2d 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-curnen-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack