People v. Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marrero

63 A.D.3d 570, 881 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 570 (People v. Marrero) 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. Marrero, 63 A.D.3d 570, 881 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgement Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered December 22, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted coercion in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient. We further find that the verdict was not against the [571]*571weight 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, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony. The fact that the jury acquitted defendant of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgement Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), rendered December 22, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted coercion in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient. We further find that the verdict was not against the [571]*571weight 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, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony. The fact that the jury acquitted defendant of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 570, 881 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marrero-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack