People v. Veil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Veil

165 A.D.2d 838

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D.2d 838 (People v. Veil) 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. Veil, 165 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered April 27, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although there were some minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses, it is well settled that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining argument that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered April 27, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although there were some minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses, it is well settled that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining argument that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-veil-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack