People v. Maromaty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maromaty

291 A.D.2d 509, 738 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 509 (People v. Maromaty) 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. Maromaty, 291 A.D.2d 509, 738 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, 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 (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 509, 738 N.Y.S.2d 233, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maromaty-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack