People v. Forbes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Forbes

246 A.D.2d 489, 667 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 716

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 489 (People v. Forbes) 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. Forbes, 246 A.D.2d 489, 667 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was [490]*490not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY2d 84, 94).

The court’s restrictions on defendant’s cross-examination of the victim were proper exercises of discretion. Defendant was given ample scope of inquiry on the subjects in question.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was [490]*490not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY2d 84, 94).

The court’s restrictions on defendant’s cross-examination of the victim were proper exercises of discretion. Defendant was given ample scope of inquiry on the subjects in question.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 489, 667 N.Y.S.2d 254, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-forbes-nyappdiv-1998.