People v. DiGenaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DiGenaro

68 A.D.3d 781, 888 N.Y.2d 909

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 781 (People v. DiGenaro) 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. DiGenaro, 68 A.D.3d 781, 888 N.Y.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]; People v Lawson, 65 AD3d 1380 [2009]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 [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]; People v Ramirez, 65 AD3d 1168 [2009]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see CPL 470.15 [2] [c]; [6] [b]; CPL 470.20 [6]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519 [1983]; People v Taylor, 65 AD3d 1169 [2009]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s remaining contention, raised in point two of her brief, alleging that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]; People v Lawson, 65 AD3d 1380 [2009]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 [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]; People v Ramirez, 65 AD3d 1168 [2009]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see CPL 470.15 [2] [c]; [6] [b]; CPL 470.20 [6]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519 [1983]; People v Taylor, 65 AD3d 1169 [2009]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s remaining contention, raised in point two of her brief, alleging that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 781, 888 N.Y.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-digenaro-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack