People v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parker

91 A.D.3d 423, 936 N.Y.2d 30

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 423 (People v. Parker) 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. Parker, 91 A.D.3d 423, 936 N.Y.2d 30 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We further find that 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 credibility determinations. The evidence established that defendant charged car rental fees to her employer without a good faith belief that she was entitled to do so (see Penal Law § 155.15 [1]; People v Zona, 14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]), and that her actions caused her employer to become indebted to a rental company in an amount that exceeded $7,000.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation and the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

To the extent defendant is claiming that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, we reject that claim (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. We further find that 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 credibility determinations. The evidence established that defendant charged car rental fees to her employer without a good faith belief that she was entitled to do so (see Penal Law § 155.15 [1]; People v Zona, 14 NY3d 488, 493 [2010]), and that her actions caused her employer to become indebted to a rental company in an amount that exceeded $7,000.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation and the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.

To the extent defendant is claiming that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, we reject that claim (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 423, 936 N.Y.2d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parker-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack