People v. Lott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lott

59 A.D.3d 291, 874 N.Y.S.2d 37

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 291 (People v. Lott) 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. Lott, 59 A.D.3d 291, 874 N.Y.S.2d 37 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered August 10, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

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 jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant or another participant in the sale secreted most of the prerecorded buy money by means that went undetected by the police.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered August 10, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

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 jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant or another participant in the sale secreted most of the prerecorded buy money by means that went undetected by the police.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 291, 874 N.Y.S.2d 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lott-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack