People v. Sostre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sostre

182 A.D.2d 788

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

DecidedApril 20, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 788 (People v. Sostre) 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. Sostre, 182 A.D.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered July 22, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Torres, 179 AD2d 696; People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily matters for the jury to determine (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination is to be accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed absent a showing that it is clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Pizzuto, 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 County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered July 22, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Torres, 179 AD2d 696; People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily matters for the jury to determine (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84). Its determination is to be accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed absent a showing that it is clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sostre-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack