People v. Marros

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marros

282 A.D.2d 550, 722 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3600

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 550 (People v. Marros) 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. Marros, 282 A.D.2d 550, 722 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered November 16, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The prosecutor’s remarks during summation did not constitute reversible error (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Saks, 256 AD2d 479). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, 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, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered November 16, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The prosecutor’s remarks during summation did not constitute reversible error (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Saks, 256 AD2d 479). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 550, 722 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marros-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack