People v. DeMaria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeMaria

116 A.D.3d 967, 983 N.Y.S.2d 835

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

DecidedApril 23, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 967 (People v. DeMaria) 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. DeMaria, 116 A.D.3d 967, 983 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester [968]*968County (Zambelli, J.), rendered May 22, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [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]). Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, 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, Westchester [968]*968County (Zambelli, J.), rendered May 22, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [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]). Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 967, 983 N.Y.S.2d 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demaria-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack