People v. Martinez (Carlos)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martinez (Carlos)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 19, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50233(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Martinez (Carlos) (People v. Martinez (Carlos)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Martinez (Carlos), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Carlos Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered January 13, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of reckless driving, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered January 13, 2016, affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 113 [2011]), it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of reckless driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212). The credited police testimony established that defendant, while driving south in the left lane on Third Avenue, cut off a police vehicle in the right lane without signaling and then failed to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The trial court could rationally conclude from the evidence that defendant "unreasonably interfere[d] with the free and proper use of the public highway" and unreasonably endangered the safety of those that were on the road at that time (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212; see People v Grogan, 260 NY 138, 144 [1932]; People v Olsen, 124 AD3d 1084, 1086 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 933 [2015]; People v Cooper, 38 AD3d 678, 679-680 [2007]).

Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility, including its acceptance of the police officer's eye-witness testimony and rejection of defendant's testimony, which consisted primarily of defendant repeatedly stating that the officer was lying without refuting the officer's version of events.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 19, 2020

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Carlos Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered January 13, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of reckless driving, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered January 13, 2016, affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 113 [2011]), it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of reckless driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212). The credited police testimony established that defendant, while driving south in the left lane on Third Avenue, cut off a police vehicle in the right lane without signaling and then failed to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The trial court could rationally conclude from the evidence that defendant "unreasonably interfere[d] with the free and proper use of the public highway" and unreasonably endangered the safety of those that were on the road at that time (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212; see People v Grogan, 260 NY 138, 144 [1932]; People v Olsen, 124 AD3d 1084, 1086 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 933 [2015]; People v Cooper, 38 AD3d 678, 679-680 [2007]).

Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determinations concerning credibility, including its acceptance of the police officer's eye-witness testimony and rejection of defendant's testimony, which consisted primarily of defendant repeatedly stating that the officer was lying without refuting the officer's version of events.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 19, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Martinez (Carlos), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martinez-carlos-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack