People v. Fomby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fomby

193 A.D.2d 1097, 600 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5732

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1097 (People v. Fomby) 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. Fomby, 193 A.D.2d 1097, 600 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After weighing the probative strength of the conflicting testimony at trial and the relative strength of the conflicting inferences that may be drawn from that testimony (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), we conclude that defendant’s conviction is not against the weight of the evidence.

Defendant raised no objection to the jury verdict before the jury was discharged and, therefore, failed to preserve for review his contention that the verdict was repugnant (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745; People v Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048; People v Duncan, 177 AD2d 187, lv denied 79 NY2d 1048).

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J.—Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: After weighing the probative strength of the conflicting testimony at trial and the relative strength of the conflicting inferences that may be drawn from that testimony (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), we conclude that defendant’s conviction is not against the weight of the evidence.

Defendant raised no objection to the jury verdict before the jury was discharged and, therefore, failed to preserve for review his contention that the verdict was repugnant (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745; People v Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048; People v Duncan, 177 AD2d 187, lv denied 79 NY2d 1048).

We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J.—Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1097, 600 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fomby-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack