People v. Nanku

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nanku

2017 NY Slip Op 6295, 153 A.D.3d 856, 57 N.Y.S.3d 909

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

DecidedAugust 23, 2017

Docket2014-06503

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6295 (People v. Nanku) 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. Nanku, 2017 NY Slip Op 6295, 153 A.D.3d 856, 57 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered April 17, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). “[T]he appropriate standard for evaluating [a] weight of the evidence argument is the same, regardless of whether the factfinder was a judge or jury” (People v Rojas, 80 AD3d 782, 782 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, 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 (Griffin, J.), rendered April 17, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). “[T]he appropriate standard for evaluating [a] weight of the evidence argument is the same, regardless of whether the factfinder was a judge or jury” (People v Rojas, 80 AD3d 782, 782 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6295, 153 A.D.3d 856, 57 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nanku-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack