People v. Park (Jung)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Park (Jung)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 30, 2020

Docket2020 NYSlipOp 50144(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Park (Jung) (People v. Park (Jung)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Park (Jung), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jung E. Park, Appellant.

Jung E. Park, appellant pro se. Tuckahoe Village Attorney's Office (Gary Gjertsen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Tuckahoe, Westchester County (David Otis Fuller, Jr., J.), rendered February 6, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of disobeying a traffic control device, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, following a nonjury trial, of disobeying a traffic control device (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 [a]). To the extent that defendant's contention on appeal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt, by not moving for dismissal on this ground in the Justice Court, defendant failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19—20 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). However, to the extent that defendant's contention is that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence, this contention needs no preservation (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). Upon a review of the record, while according great deference to the Justice Court's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we are of the opinion that the verdict should not be disturbed, as the trial court gave the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see CPL 470.15 [5]; Danielson, 9 NY3d 342). Consequently, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 30, 2020

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jung E. Park, Appellant.

Jung E. Park, appellant pro se. Tuckahoe Village Attorney's Office (Gary Gjertsen of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Tuckahoe, Westchester County (David Otis Fuller, Jr., J.), rendered February 6, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of disobeying a traffic control device, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was convicted, following a nonjury trial, of disobeying a traffic control device (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1110 [a]). To the extent that defendant's contention on appeal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish her guilt, by not moving for dismissal on this ground in the Justice Court, defendant failed to preserve this claim for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19—20 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). However, to the extent that defendant's contention is that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence, this contention needs no preservation (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). Upon a review of the record, while according great deference to the Justice Court's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we are of the opinion that the verdict should not be disturbed, as the trial court gave the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see CPL 470.15 [5]; Danielson, 9 NY3d 342). Consequently, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: January 30, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Park (Jung), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-park-jung-nyappterm-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack