People v. Guity

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guity

22 A.D.3d 331, 804 N.Y.S.2d 297

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

DecidedOctober 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 331 (People v. Guity) 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. Guity, 22 A.D.3d 331, 804 N.Y.S.2d 297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered December 4, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12, 8 and 6 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of credibility and identification, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation providing for imposition of a DNA databank fee (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), that fee should not have been imposed.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered December 4, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12, 8 and 6 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of credibility and identification, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation providing for imposition of a DNA databank fee (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), that fee should not have been imposed.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 331, 804 N.Y.S.2d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guity-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack