People v. Salim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salim

222 A.D.2d 621, 636 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12956

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 621 (People v. Salim) 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. Salim, 222 A.D.2d 621, 636 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 16, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, criminal possession of a forgery device, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that he was not properly adjudicated a second felony offender (see, People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961; People v DeGroat, 203 AD2d 378). In any event, he waived this issue (see, CPL 400.21; People v Hewitt, 97 AD2d 828; People v Quattrocchi, 121 AD2d 479). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan 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, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 16, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, criminal possession of a forgery device, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that he was not properly adjudicated a second felony offender (see, People v Smith, 73 NY2d 961; People v DeGroat, 203 AD2d 378). In any event, he waived this issue (see, CPL 400.21; People v Hewitt, 97 AD2d 828; People v Quattrocchi, 121 AD2d 479). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 621, 636 N.Y.S.2d 647, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salim-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack