People v. Tejada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tejada

264 A.D.2d 646, 696 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9298

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 646 (People v. Tejada) 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. Tejada, 264 A.D.2d 646, 696 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Hettinger, J.), rendered April 30, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the second degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of probation of 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence at trial was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Given these determinations, there was ample evidence to support the requisite elements of the crimes of which defendant was convicted.

We conclude that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the isolated summation remark challenged on appeal (see, People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Hettinger, J.), rendered April 30, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the second degree and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of probation of 3 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence at trial was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Given these determinations, there was ample evidence to support the requisite elements of the crimes of which defendant was convicted.

We conclude that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the isolated summation remark challenged on appeal (see, People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884). Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 646, 696 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tejada-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack