People v. Delvecchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delvecchio

106 A.D.3d 624, 965 N.Y.S.2d 715

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

DecidedMay 28, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.3d 624 (People v. Delvecchio) 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. Delvecchio, 106 A.D.3d 624, 965 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J.), rendered October 3, 2008, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree and attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days and a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence of defendant’s guilt, including the testimony of defendant’s mother-in-law, sister-in-law and estranged wife that defendant made repeated, threatening telephone calls in violation of a valid order of protection, along with an answering machine tape containing several of defendant’s messages. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barbara F. Newman, J.), rendered October 3, 2008, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree and attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 90 days and a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence of defendant’s guilt, including the testimony of defendant’s mother-in-law, sister-in-law and estranged wife that defendant made repeated, threatening telephone calls in violation of a valid order of protection, along with an answering machine tape containing several of defendant’s messages. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.3d 624, 965 N.Y.S.2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delvecchio-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack