People v. Mazyck

3 A.D.3d 583, 770 N.Y.S.2d 656
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 583 (People v. Mazyck) 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. Mazyck, 3 A.D.3d 583, 770 N.Y.S.2d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 14, 2001, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide, 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925 [1994]; People v Hawkins-Rusch, 212 AD2d 961 [1995]). 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]).

[584]*584Since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was not entirely circumstantial (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]; People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879 [1978]), the trial court properly refused to give a circumstantial evidence charge (see People v Guidice, supra at 636; People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor did not advocate a position that she knew to be false (cf. People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97 [1984]). Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor breached her duty to correct testimony that she knew to be mistaken or false (see People v Steadman, 82 NY2d 1 [1993]; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554, 556 [1956]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and in any event, is without merit.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Baez
2019 NY Slip Op 6163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Ragen
140 A.D.3d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. McCoy
30 A.D.3d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Livingston
27 A.D.3d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 A.D.3d 583, 770 N.Y.S.2d 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mazyck-nyappdiv-2004.