People v. Glusko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Glusko

213 A.D.2d 557, 624 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2877

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 557 (People v. Glusko) 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. Glusko, 213 A.D.2d 557, 624 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered October 6, 1992, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant caused damage to the complainant’s property in excess of $250 (see, Penal Law § 145.05). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, 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 County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered October 6, 1992, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant caused damage to the complainant’s property in excess of $250 (see, Penal Law § 145.05). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 557, 624 N.Y.S.2d 915, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-glusko-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack