People v. Seaberry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seaberry

244 A.D.2d 581, 665 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11800

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 581 (People v. Seaberry) 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. Seaberry, 244 A.D.2d 581, 665 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered July 25, 1994, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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]).

[582]*582The defendant’s contention that the court erred in not providing a circumstantial evidence charge pursuant to 1 CJI(NY) 9.05 is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cave, 191 AD2d 704), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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