People v. Lyles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lyles

199 A.D.2d 339, 606 N.Y.S.2d 988

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 339 (People v. Lyles) 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. Lyles, 199 A.D.2d 339, 606 N.Y.S.2d 988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered April 13, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[340]*340Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to convict the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, 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 Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Furthermore, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Santucci, 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, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered April 13, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[340]*340Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to convict the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, 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 Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Furthermore, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 339, 606 N.Y.S.2d 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lyles-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack