People v. Milliner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Milliner

133 A.D.2d 853, 520 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51910

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 26, 1987·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered February 22, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony of the complainant, who had ample opportunity to view the defendant during the commission of the crime, was, in and of itself, sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction (see, People v McCrimmon, 131 AD2d 598). The trier of fact was entitled to give great weight to the complainant’s testimony and to reject that of the defendant and his alibi witnesses (see, People v McCrimmon, supra).

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions, including those in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered February 22, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony of the complainant, who had ample opportunity to view the defendant during the commission of the crime, was, in and of itself, sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction (see, People v McCrimmon, 131 AD2d 598). The trier of fact was entitled to give great weight to the complainant’s testimony and to reject that of the defendant and his alibi witnesses (see, People v McCrimmon, supra).

We have considered the defendant’s other contentions, including those in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.

People v. Milliner, 133 A.D.2d 853, 520 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

133 A.D.2d 853 (People v. Milliner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related