People v. Khork

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Khork

53 A.D.3d 1104, 859 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.3d 1104 (People v. Khork) 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. Khork, 53 A.D.3d 1104, 859 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, J.), rendered October 10, 2006. The judgment conviicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal trespass in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

[1105]*1105Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is inconsistent (see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People v Flecha, 43 AD3d 1385 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 990 [2007]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Marianne Furfure, J.), rendered October 10, 2006. The judgment conviicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal trespass in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

[1105]*1105Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict is inconsistent (see People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987 [1985]; People v Flecha, 43 AD3d 1385 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 990 [2007]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 1104, 859 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-khork-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack