People v. Ramdass (Serpaul)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedApril 7, 2016
Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50589(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Ramdass (Serpaul) (People v. Ramdass (Serpaul)) 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. Ramdass (Serpaul), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion



The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Serpaul Ramdass, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Robert Cox McGann, J.H.O.), rendered February 21, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of failing to post tow truck rate information on each side of his tow truck in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-507 (b).

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, defendant, a licensed tow truck operator, was found guilty of violating Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-507 (b) by failing to post tow truck rate information on each side of his tow truck.

To the extent defendant claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict, the claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [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 defendant's guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence established that there were no tow rates posted on defendant's tow truck (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-507 [b]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Solomon, J.P., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: April 07, 2016

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

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Hawkins
900 N.E.2d 946 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Ramdass (Serpaul), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramdass-serpaul-nyappterm-2016.