People v. Long

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Long

224 A.D.2d 949, 638 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1587

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 949 (People v. Long) 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. Long, 224 A.D.2d 949, 638 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of burglary in the third degree is against the weight of the evidence because the People failed to establish that he knowingly entered the gas station unlawfully or that he entered with the contemporaneous intent to commit a crime therein (see, People v Graves, 76 NY2d 16; People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 362). We disagree. The jury, faced with conflicting testimony, resolved the issue of credibility and rejected defendant’s claim (see, People v Christian [appeal No. 1], 139 AD2d 896, lv denied 71 NY2d 1024). Upon weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Do-err and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of burglary in the third degree is against the weight of the evidence because the People failed to establish that he knowingly entered the gas station unlawfully or that he entered with the contemporaneous intent to commit a crime therein (see, People v Graves, 76 NY2d 16; People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 362). We disagree. The jury, faced with conflicting testimony, resolved the issue of credibility and rejected defendant’s claim (see, People v Christian [appeal No. 1], 139 AD2d 896, lv denied 71 NY2d 1024). Upon weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Do-err and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 949, 638 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-long-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack