People v. McNeil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McNeil

18 A.D.3d 360, 794 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536

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

DecidedMay 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 360 (People v. McNeil) 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. McNeil, 18 A.D.3d 360, 794 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered March 20, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was [361]*361not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The undercover officer had an ample opportunity to observe defendant during the transaction, and provided a detailed and accurate description. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered March 20, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was [361]*361not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The undercover officer had an ample opportunity to observe defendant during the transaction, and provided a detailed and accurate description. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 360, 794 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcneil-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack