People v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sherman

2 A.D.3d 466, 767 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1 A.D.2d 377, 766 N.Y.S.2d 868

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 466 (People v. Sherman) 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. Sherman, 2 A.D.3d 466, 767 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1 A.D.2d 377, 766 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered November 27, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a [467]*467reasonable doubt (see People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]). Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because of inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses is without merit. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be resolved by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). 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]). S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, 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 (Spires, J.), rendered November 27, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a [467]*467reasonable doubt (see People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]). Moreover, the defendant’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because of inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses is without merit. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be resolved by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). 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]). S. Miller, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 466, 767 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1 A.D.2d 377, 766 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sherman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack