People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hill

236 A.D.2d 422, 654 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 982

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 422 (People v. Hill) 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. Hill, 236 A.D.2d 422, 654 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defen[423]*423dant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered September 14, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). In addition, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit, or do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defen[423]*423dant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered September 14, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). In addition, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit, or do not warrant reversal. Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 422, 654 N.Y.S.2d 320, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hill-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack