People v. Taylor

289 A.D.2d 986, 734 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12535
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Taylor. Read the opinion of the Court — 256 A.D.2d 1146

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). “Great deference is to be accorded to the fact-finder’s resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony” (People v Valencia, 263 AD2d 874, 876, lv denied 94 NY2d 799). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Aloi, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Burns, JJ.

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

People v. Taylor, 289 A.D.2d 986, 734 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

289 A.D.2d 986 (People v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Valencia
263 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)