People v. Grady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grady

61 A.D.3d 1416, 877 N.Y.S.2d 715

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

DecidedApril 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 1416 (People v. Grady) 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. Grady, 61 A.D.3d 1416, 877 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered June 11, 2007. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of, inter alia, driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. “County Court’s determination resolving witness cred-

[1417]*1417ibility must be accorded ‘great weight’ ” (People v Cruz, 35 AD3d 898, 899 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 845 [2007]), and we conclude that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the conditions of his probation (see People v Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225 [2008]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered June 11, 2007. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of, inter alia, driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. “County Court’s determination resolving witness cred-

[1417]*1417ibility must be accorded ‘great weight’ ” (People v Cruz, 35 AD3d 898, 899 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 845 [2007]), and we conclude that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the conditions of his probation (see People v Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225 [2008]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 1416, 877 N.Y.S.2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grady-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack