People v. Gupton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gupton

281 A.D.2d 963, 723 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2903

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 963 (People v. Gupton) 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. Gupton, 281 A.D.2d 963, 723 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a bench trial of two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). Her sole contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred in admitting prior consistent statements of the infant victim (see generally, People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16; People v McClean, 69 NY2d 426, 428). Although defendant preserved that contention for our review by a timely objection, this was a bench trial, and the Trial Judge is presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching the verdict (see, People v Clinkscales, 277 AD2d 930; People v Limpert, 186 AD2d 1005, lv denied 81 NY2d 764; People v Livingston, 184 AD2d 529, 530; People v Mann, 172 AD2d 1010, 1010-1011, lv denied 78 NY2d 969). There is no basis in this record to conclude that the court did otherwise (see, People v Clinkscales, supra; People v Concepcion, 266 AD2d 227, lv denied 94 NY2d 917). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Endangering Welfare Child.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a bench trial of two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]). Her sole contention on appeal is that Supreme Court erred in admitting prior consistent statements of the infant victim (see generally, People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16; People v McClean, 69 NY2d 426, 428). Although defendant preserved that contention for our review by a timely objection, this was a bench trial, and the Trial Judge is presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching the verdict (see, People v Clinkscales, 277 AD2d 930; People v Limpert, 186 AD2d 1005, lv denied 81 NY2d 764; People v Livingston, 184 AD2d 529, 530; People v Mann, 172 AD2d 1010, 1010-1011, lv denied 78 NY2d 969). There is no basis in this record to conclude that the court did otherwise (see, People v Clinkscales, supra; People v Concepcion, 266 AD2d 227, lv denied 94 NY2d 917). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Endangering Welfare Child.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 963, 723 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gupton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack