People v. Sidberry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sidberry

51 A.D.3d 464, 857 N.Y.S.2d 548

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

DecidedMay 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.3d 464 (People v. Sidberry) 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. Sidberry, 51 A.D.3d 464, 857 N.Y.S.2d 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered August 8, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification, particularly where the evidence included a prompt identification and the recovery of prerecorded buy money from defendant’s person. The inconsistencies in testimony cited by defendant do not warrant disturbing the verdict. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered August 8, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification, particularly where the evidence included a prompt identification and the recovery of prerecorded buy money from defendant’s person. The inconsistencies in testimony cited by defendant do not warrant disturbing the verdict. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 464, 857 N.Y.S.2d 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sidberry-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack