People v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henry

49 A.D.3d 897, 853 N.Y.2d 894

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 897 (People v. Henry) 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. Henry, 49 A.D.3d 897, 853 N.Y.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the complainant’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law (see People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392 [2005]; People v Davis, 299 AD2d 420 [2002]). Further, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the [898]*898verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Helen, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the complainant’s testimony was not incredible as a matter of law (see People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392 [2005]; People v Davis, 299 AD2d 420 [2002]). Further, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the [898]*898verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Helen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 897, 853 N.Y.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henry-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack