People v. Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Street

16 A.D.3d 313, 791 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 313 (People v. Street) 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. Street, 16 A.D.3d 313, 791 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal [314]*314sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. Although defendant relies heavily on the trial testimony of his codefendants, we note that their testimony was contradicted by their plea allocutions. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered June 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal [314]*314sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. Although defendant relies heavily on the trial testimony of his codefendants, we note that their testimony was contradicted by their plea allocutions. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 313, 791 N.Y.S.2d 418, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-street-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack