People v. Marin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marin

124 A.D.3d 491, 998 N.Y.S.2d 301

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2015

Docket13985

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 491 (People v. Marin) 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. Marin, 124 A.D.3d 491, 998 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Colleen D. Duffy, J.), rendered April 12, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term *492 of three months of intermittent imprisonment to be served on weekends, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The court found that the minor discrepancies in the testimony of a police witness did not undermine the officer’s credibility, and we find no reason to disturb that determination. The evidence established the requisite intent for each conviction.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Colleen D. Duffy, J.), rendered April 12, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term *492 of three months of intermittent imprisonment to be served on weekends, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The court found that the minor discrepancies in the testimony of a police witness did not undermine the officer’s credibility, and we find no reason to disturb that determination. The evidence established the requisite intent for each conviction.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 491, 998 N.Y.S.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marin-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack