People v. Ramos-Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramos-Medina

113 A.D.3d 543, 979 N.Y.2d 516

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 543 (People v. Ramos-Medina) 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. Ramos-Medina, 113 A.D.3d 543, 979 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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 [544]*544court’s credibility determinations. The fact that the court may have discredited some aspects of the victim’s testimony does not warrant a different conclusion. As trier of fact, the court was entitled to disregard so much of any witness’s testimony as it found to have been untruthful, and accept so much of it as it found to have been truthful and accurate (see People v Hill, 110 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2013]).

The evidentiary issues raised by defendant do not warrant reversal. Any error regarding those issues was harmless, particularly in the context of a nonjury trial (see generally People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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 [544]*544court’s credibility determinations. The fact that the court may have discredited some aspects of the victim’s testimony does not warrant a different conclusion. As trier of fact, the court was entitled to disregard so much of any witness’s testimony as it found to have been untruthful, and accept so much of it as it found to have been truthful and accurate (see People v Hill, 110 AD3d 410 [1st Dept 2013]).

The evidentiary issues raised by defendant do not warrant reversal. Any error regarding those issues was harmless, particularly in the context of a nonjury trial (see generally People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405-406 [1987]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 543, 979 N.Y.2d 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramos-medina-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack