People v. Velez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Velez

237 A.D.2d 470, 655 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2489

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 470 (People v. Velez) 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. Velez, 237 A.D.2d 470, 655 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 15, 1995, convicting him of sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that because the People’s case was supported by only the complainant’s testimony which, he claims, was undercut by other aspects of the People’s case, the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, 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, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 15, 1995, convicting him of sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that because the People’s case was supported by only the complainant’s testimony which, he claims, was undercut by other aspects of the People’s case, the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 470, 655 N.Y.S.2d 965, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-velez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack