People v. Vladymir G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vladymir G.

194 A.D.2d 391, 599 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5934

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

DecidedJune 10, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 391 (People v. Vladymir G.) 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. Vladymir G., 194 A.D.2d 391, 599 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin H. Rettinger, J.), rendered October 1, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to a term of one and one-third to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the People proved defendant’s guilt of the crime charged by overwhelming evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The jury’s determinations regarding credibility and the proffered justification defense are supported by the record, and will not be disturbed by this Court (People v Fonte, 159 AD2d 346, lv denied 76 NY2d 734).

The trial court properly denied the requested missing witness charge, as there was no showing that the proposed witness’ testimony would have been favorable to the People or that she was within their control (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 429).

We perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sentencing (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin H. Rettinger, J.), rendered October 1, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to a term of one and one-third to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the People proved defendant’s guilt of the crime charged by overwhelming evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The jury’s determinations regarding credibility and the proffered justification defense are supported by the record, and will not be disturbed by this Court (People v Fonte, 159 AD2d 346, lv denied 76 NY2d 734).

The trial court properly denied the requested missing witness charge, as there was no showing that the proposed witness’ testimony would have been favorable to the People or that she was within their control (People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 429).

We perceive no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sentencing (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 391, 599 N.Y.S.2d 952, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vladymir-g-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack