People v. Maurad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maurad

308 A.D.2d 419, 764 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9931

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 419 (People v. Maurad) 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. Maurad, 308 A.D.2d 419, 764 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered January [420]*42031, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 23 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

The prosecutor’s comment on the demeanor and credibility of a defense witness was within the bounds of permissible advocacy. All of defendant’s other challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in response to defense arguments, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered January [420]*42031, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 23 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

The prosecutor’s comment on the demeanor and credibility of a defense witness was within the bounds of permissible advocacy. All of defendant’s other challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence, and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in response to defense arguments, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 419, 764 N.Y.S.2d 823, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maurad-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack