People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Joseph

240 A.D.2d 351, 659 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6943

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

DecidedJune 26, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 351 (People v. Joseph) 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. Joseph, 240 A.D.2d 351, 659 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 31/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Upon our independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Credibility issues and challenges to the reliability of identification testimony were properly placed before the jury and we find no reason to disturb its findings.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion, and find that the sentence was not based on any inappropriate criteria. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 31/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Upon our independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Credibility issues and challenges to the reliability of identification testimony were properly placed before the jury and we find no reason to disturb its findings.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion, and find that the sentence was not based on any inappropriate criteria. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 351, 659 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-joseph-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack