People v. Irrizary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Irrizary

150 A.D.2d 727, 541 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087

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

DecidedMay 22, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 727 (People v. Irrizary) 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. Irrizary, 150 A.D.2d 727, 541 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered April 9, 1986, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the [728]*728evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Two eyewitnesses testified that the defendant fired three shotgun blasts at the deceased, striking him in the chest three times. Although the defendant contends that these witnesses should not have been believed by the jury, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94, supra; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). We find no basis to disturb the jury’s determination.

We further find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered April 9, 1986, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the [728]*728evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Two eyewitnesses testified that the defendant fired three shotgun blasts at the deceased, striking him in the chest three times. Although the defendant contends that these witnesses should not have been believed by the jury, resolutions of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94, supra; People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). We find no basis to disturb the jury’s determination.

We further find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 727, 541 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-irrizary-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack