People v. McLoyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McLoyd

125 A.D.2d 604, 509 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62894

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 604 (People v. McLoyd) 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. McLoyd, 125 A.D.2d 604, 509 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Aylward, J.), rendered June 3, 1982, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record discloses that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Although there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, the assessment of credibility and the weight to be accorded such testimony are for the trier of fact to resolve (see, People v Storm, 114 AD2d 477; People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755, lv denied 64 NY2d 1133; People v Leonard, 106 AD2d 470). Further, the defendant failed to request the justification charge to which he now claims he was entitled and, accordingly, the issue of law has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Glinsman, 107 AD2d 710, lv denied 64 NY2d 889). We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Aylward, J.), rendered June 3, 1982, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record discloses that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Although there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, the assessment of credibility and the weight to be accorded such testimony are for the trier of fact to resolve (see, People v Storm, 114 AD2d 477; People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755, lv denied 64 NY2d 1133; People v Leonard, 106 AD2d 470). Further, the defendant failed to request the justification charge to which he now claims he was entitled and, accordingly, the issue of law has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Glinsman, 107 AD2d 710, lv denied 64 NY2d 889). We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 604, 509 N.Y.S.2d 657, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcloyd-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack