People v. Orridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Orridge

80 A.D.3d 427, 913 N.Y.S.2d 555

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.3d 427 (People v. Orridge) 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. Orridge, 80 A.D.3d 427, 913 N.Y.S.2d 555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 15, 2007, as amended December 6, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 40 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. There was extensive evidence, provided by multiple witnesses, to establish defendant’s identity as the assailant. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 15, 2007, as amended December 6, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 40 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. There was extensive evidence, provided by multiple witnesses, to establish defendant’s identity as the assailant. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 427, 913 N.Y.S.2d 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-orridge-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack