People v. Fordham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fordham

289 A.D.2d 504, 735 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 504 (People v. Fordham) 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. Fordham, 289 A.D.2d 504, 735 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered August 9, 2000, convicting him of [505]*505criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112). Moreover, resolution of credibility issues, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94; People v Blake, 219 AD2d 730). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; People v Clay, 282 AD2d 755, lv denied 96 NY2d 899). 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]). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), rendered August 9, 2000, convicting him of [505]*505criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Lewis, 64 NY2d 1111, 1112). Moreover, resolution of credibility issues, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94; People v Blake, 219 AD2d 730). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; People v Clay, 282 AD2d 755, lv denied 96 NY2d 899). 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]). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 504, 735 N.Y.S.2d 419, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fordham-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack