People v. Nuzzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nuzzo

181 A.D.2d 1033, 586 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4632

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 1033 (People v. Nuzzo) 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. Nuzzo, 181 A.D.2d 1033, 586 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of arson in the third degree, based solely upon circumstantial evidence, was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. In considering defendant’s contention, we must assume that the jury credited the prosecution witnesses and drew all reasonable inferences in the prosecution’s favor (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 203; People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, 32). Viewing the evidence in that light, we conclude that it excluded to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707, 709-710; People v Herrera, 136 AD2d 567, 568, lv denied 70 NY2d 1007).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Arson, 3rd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his conviction of arson in the third degree, based solely upon circumstantial evidence, was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree. In considering defendant’s contention, we must assume that the jury credited the prosecution witnesses and drew all reasonable inferences in the prosecution’s favor (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196, 203; People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29, 32). Viewing the evidence in that light, we conclude that it excluded to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt (see, People v Betancourt, 68 NY2d 707, 709-710; People v Herrera, 136 AD2d 567, 568, lv denied 70 NY2d 1007).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Arson, 3rd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 1033, 586 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nuzzo-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack