People v. Palacio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palacio

22 A.D.3d 248, 801 N.Y.S.2d 531

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 248 (People v. Palacio) 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. Palacio, 22 A.D.3d 248, 801 N.Y.S.2d 531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, [249]*249Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 9, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of ¿Va to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). There was ample evidence warranting the jury’s rejection of the defense of temporary lawful possession (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799 [1990]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043 [1980]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, [249]*249Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered January 9, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of ¿Va to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). There was ample evidence warranting the jury’s rejection of the defense of temporary lawful possession (see People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799 [1990]; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043 [1980]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 248, 801 N.Y.S.2d 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palacio-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack