People v. Mora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mora

207 A.D.2d 914, 616 N.Y.S.2d 991

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 914 (People v. Mora) 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. Mora, 207 A.D.2d 914, 616 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered September 26, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve the issue of legal sufficiency for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250; cf., People v Gonzalez, 200 AD2d 759). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that the testimony of the complainant and his friends was incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Grajales, 187 AD2d 631). 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Florio, 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 (Robinson, J.), rendered September 26, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific enough to preserve the issue of legal sufficiency for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250; cf., People v Gonzalez, 200 AD2d 759). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that the testimony of the complainant and his friends was incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Grajales, 187 AD2d 631). 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 914, 616 N.Y.S.2d 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mora-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack