People v. Overton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Overton

123 A.D.2d 403, 506 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60160

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 403 (People v. Overton) 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. Overton, 123 A.D.2d 403, 506 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered July 9, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Upon a review of the record we find no basis to warrant interference with the factual determinations made at the defendant’s combined Mapp and Huntley hearing. The hearing court resolved the issue of credibility against the defendant based upon its opportunity to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh the testimony first hand (see, People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726; People v Vail, 90 AD2d 917). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kunzeman, 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, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered July 9, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Upon a review of the record we find no basis to warrant interference with the factual determinations made at the defendant’s combined Mapp and Huntley hearing. The hearing court resolved the issue of credibility against the defendant based upon its opportunity to assess the demeanor of the witnesses and to weigh the testimony first hand (see, People v Armstead, 98 AD2d 726; People v Vail, 90 AD2d 917). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 403, 506 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-overton-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack