People v. Sealy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sealy

7 A.D.3d 287, 776 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607

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

DecidedMay 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 287 (People v. Sealy) 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. Sealy, 7 A.D.3d 287, 776 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered March 26, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of ÍV2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Moreover, we find the evidence to be overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The undercover officer made a highly reliable identification, which was corroborated by other evidence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered March 26, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of ÍV2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Moreover, we find the evidence to be overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The undercover officer made a highly reliable identification, which was corroborated by other evidence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 287, 776 N.Y.S.2d 788, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sealy-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack