People v. Sagginario

137 A.D.2d 636, 524 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1033
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 8, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 636 (People v. Sagginario) 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. Sagginario, 137 A.D.2d 636, 524 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered July 1, 1986, convicting him of insurance fraud in the first degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it is legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of the crimes charged (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, 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]). Matters of credibility and reliability of the witnesses’ testimony are primarily for the jury to decide and on this record the jury’s determination should not be disturbed (see, People v McCrimmon, 131 AD2d 598, lv dismissed 70 NY2d 714).

We further find that there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony (see, People v Harris, 126 AD2d 745, lv denied 69 NY2d 1004).

Although certain of the prosecutor’s comments were improper, the defendant was not denied a fair trial.

[637]*637The defendant’s claim that the closure of the courtroom during the charge deprived him of his right to a public trial has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, as this court has recently held, such a claim is without merit (see, People v Zenger, 134 AD2d 640).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Gonzalez
140 A.D.2d 455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.2d 636, 524 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sagginario-nyappdiv-1988.