People v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vasquez

258 A.D.2d 429, 682 N.Y.S.2d 581

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 429 (People v. Vasquez) 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. Vasquez, 258 A.D.2d 429, 682 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., at hearing; Patricia Williams, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 16, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility of witnesses and reliability of identification testimony.

We have considered and rejected the contentions raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., at hearing; Patricia Williams, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 16, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility of witnesses and reliability of identification testimony.

We have considered and rejected the contentions raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 429, 682 N.Y.S.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vasquez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack