People v. Poje

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Poje

209 A.D.2d 645, 619 N.Y.S.2d 662

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 645 (People v. Poje) 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. Poje, 209 A.D.2d 645, 619 N.Y.S.2d 662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered September 30, 1992, convicting him of assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the defendant maintains that he cannot be found guilty of assault in the second degree because he lacked the requisite intent, resolution of this issue, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, lay with the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, 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, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered September 30, 1992, convicting him of assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the defendant maintains that he cannot be found guilty of assault in the second degree because he lacked the requisite intent, resolution of this issue, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, lay with the trial court, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 645, 619 N.Y.S.2d 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-poje-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack