People v. Malo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Malo

76 A.D.2d 938, 907 N.Y.S.2d 677

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 938 (People v. Malo) 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. Malo, 76 A.D.2d 938, 907 N.Y.S.2d 677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Catherine M. Bartlett, J.), rendered October 24, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. We also find that 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 evidence supports the conclusion that defendant acted recklessly, and that he caused , physical injury to the victim (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Catherine M. Bartlett, J.), rendered October 24, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree and disorderly conduct, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. We also find that 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 evidence supports the conclusion that defendant acted recklessly, and that he caused , physical injury to the victim (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

Defendant’s claim that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined him is without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 938, 907 N.Y.S.2d 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-malo-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack