People v. Giardano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Giardano

195 A.D.2d 417, 601 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7501

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 417 (People v. Giardano) 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. Giardano, 195 A.D.2d 417, 601 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered December 3, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to 3 years probation with the condition that he participate in a substance abuse program on an out-patient basis, unanimously affirmed.

Giving the hearing court’s determination the weight to which it is entitled (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), it cannot be said that the arresting officer’s suppression hearing testimony was incredible as a matter of law because of some minor inconsistencies with his Grand Jury testimony (see, People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755), and we decline to. substitute our judgment for that of the hearing court. (See, 195 AD2d 420 [decided herewith].) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered December 3, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to 3 years probation with the condition that he participate in a substance abuse program on an out-patient basis, unanimously affirmed.

Giving the hearing court’s determination the weight to which it is entitled (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), it cannot be said that the arresting officer’s suppression hearing testimony was incredible as a matter of law because of some minor inconsistencies with his Grand Jury testimony (see, People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755), and we decline to. substitute our judgment for that of the hearing court. (See, 195 AD2d 420 [decided herewith].) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 417, 601 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-giardano-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack