People v. Sorrentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sorrentino

138 A.D.2d 760, 526 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 138 A.D.2d 760 (People v. Sorrentino) 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. Sorrentino, 138 A.D.2d 760, 526 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beer-man, J.), rendered October 25, 1984, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, we find that the trial court’s refusal to give an expanded identification charge was not error. The charge properly instructed the jury as to both the People’s burden to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt, and the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the witnesses’ veracity and the accuracy of their observations (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Daniels, 88 AD2d 392, 400).

We have examined the remainder of the defendant’s contentions on appeal and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, 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 (Beer-man, J.), rendered October 25, 1984, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, we find that the trial court’s refusal to give an expanded identification charge was not error. The charge properly instructed the jury as to both the People’s burden to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt, and the general factors relevant to an evaluation of the witnesses’ veracity and the accuracy of their observations (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Daniels, 88 AD2d 392, 400).

We have examined the remainder of the defendant’s contentions on appeal and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.2d 760, 526 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sorrentino-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack