People v. Peak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peak

119 A.D.2d 838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55789

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

DecidedApril 28, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 838 (People v. Peak) 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. Peak, 119 A.D.2d 838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered March 13, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the trial evidence in a light most favorable to the People, as we must, the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the trial testimony of the complaining witness was impeached at some points by his prior inconsistent statements, the issue of a witness’s credibility is one for the jury to decide (see, People v Cohen, 223 NY 406; People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755), and we do not find that this witness’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered March 13, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the trial evidence in a light most favorable to the People, as we must, the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the trial testimony of the complaining witness was impeached at some points by his prior inconsistent statements, the issue of a witness’s credibility is one for the jury to decide (see, People v Cohen, 223 NY 406; People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755), and we do not find that this witness’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 838, 501 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peak-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack