People v. Taebel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taebel

138 A.D.3d 606, 28 N.Y.S.3d 863

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

DecidedApril 26, 2016

Docket920 2536/12

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 606 (People v. Taebel) 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. Taebel, 138 A.D.3d 606, 28 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered May 10, 2013, as amended May 15, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six months, with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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. The evidence refuted defendant’s justification defense, and established his intent to cause serious physical injury.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se arguments.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered May 10, 2013, as amended May 15, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of six months, with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and 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. The evidence refuted defendant’s justification defense, and established his intent to cause serious physical injury.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s pro se arguments.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 606, 28 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taebel-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack