People v. Dildy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dildy

8 A.D.3d 675, 778 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9285

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 675 (People v. Dildy) 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. Dildy, 8 A.D.3d 675, 778 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Resnik J.), rendered July 18, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

[676]*676Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). The alleged inability of the witnesses for the prosecution to recall minor details about the evidence went to the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v Bryant, 302 AD2d 603 [2003]; People v Lanza, 299 AD2d 649 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Fisher, 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, Rockland County (Resnik J.), rendered July 18, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

[676]*676Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]). The alleged inability of the witnesses for the prosecution to recall minor details about the evidence went to the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v Bryant, 302 AD2d 603 [2003]; People v Lanza, 299 AD2d 649 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 675, 778 N.Y.S.2d 891, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dildy-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack