People v. Huling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Huling

140 A.D.3d 665, 33 N.Y.S.3d 725

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

DecidedJune 30, 2016

Docket1628 20157/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 665 (People v. Huling) 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. Huling, 140 A.D.3d 665, 33 N.Y.S.3d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered August 20, 2014, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed.

*666 The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s acquittal of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion, because the court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to disregard so much of the victim’s testimony as it found untruthful, and accept so much of it as found truthful (see People v Ramos-Medina, 113 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1024 [2014]).

Defendant’s challenges to the timing of the People’s filing of a superseding prosecutor’s information that removed or reduced certain charges, and to the transfer of the case from an Integrated Domestic Violence part to a regular Supreme Court part for trial, do not raise jurisdictional defects or mode of proceedings errors, and we decline to review these unpre-served claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered August 20, 2014, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed.

*666 The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s acquittal of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion, because the court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to disregard so much of the victim’s testimony as it found untruthful, and accept so much of it as found truthful (see People v Ramos-Medina, 113 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1024 [2014]).

Defendant’s challenges to the timing of the People’s filing of a superseding prosecutor’s information that removed or reduced certain charges, and to the transfer of the case from an Integrated Domestic Violence part to a regular Supreme Court part for trial, do not raise jurisdictional defects or mode of proceedings errors, and we decline to review these unpre-served claims in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 665, 33 N.Y.S.3d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huling-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack