People v. Emilione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Emilione

60 A.D.3d 533, 875 N.Y.S.2d 470

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 533 (People v. Emilione) 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. Emilione, 60 A.D.3d 533, 875 N.Y.S.2d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered March 22, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, and the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. In both instances, we find no basis for disturbing the respective factfinders’ credibility determinations concerning the police account of the incident (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge since the record shows that the testimony of the uncalled witness, with respect to the crime of which defendant was convicted, would have been entirely cumulative to that of the other witnesses (see People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 180 [1994]).

Defendant’s remaining claims do not warrant reversal. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered March 22, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, and the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. In both instances, we find no basis for disturbing the respective factfinders’ credibility determinations concerning the police account of the incident (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]; People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge since the record shows that the testimony of the uncalled witness, with respect to the crime of which defendant was convicted, would have been entirely cumulative to that of the other witnesses (see People v Macana, 84 NY2d 173, 180 [1994]).

Defendant’s remaining claims do not warrant reversal. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 533, 875 N.Y.S.2d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-emilione-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack