People v. Roy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roy

269 A.D.2d 410, 702 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 410 (People v. Roy) 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. Roy, 269 A.D.2d 410, 702 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered May 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determina[411]*411tion should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s claim that the court improperly denied his motion to preclude the identification testimony without a hearing is without merit inasmuch as the People established that the identification of the defendant was confirmatory (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922-923). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 (Orgera, J.), rendered May 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, who saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determina[411]*411tion should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s claim that the court improperly denied his motion to preclude the identification testimony without a hearing is without merit inasmuch as the People established that the identification of the defendant was confirmatory (see, People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922-923). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 410, 702 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roy-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack