People v. Pickersgill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pickersgill

41 A.D.3d 866, 837 N.Y.S.2d 585

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 866 (People v. Pickersgill) 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. Pickersgill, 41 A.D.3d 866, 837 N.Y.S.2d 585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J), rendered August 20, 2003, convicting her of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[867]*867Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting, her conviction of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894 [2000]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 120.10 [1]; § 10.00 [10]; People v Crawford, 200 AD2d 683 [1994]; Matter of Patrick W., 166 AD2d 652 [1990]; People v Howard, 79 AD2d 1064 [1981]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Angiolillo, 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, Queens County (Rotker, J), rendered August 20, 2003, convicting her of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[867]*867Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting, her conviction of assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894 [2000]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 120.10 [1]; § 10.00 [10]; People v Crawford, 200 AD2d 683 [1994]; Matter of Patrick W., 166 AD2d 652 [1990]; People v Howard, 79 AD2d 1064 [1981]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Lifson and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 866, 837 N.Y.S.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pickersgill-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack