People v. Whiley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whiley

264 A.D.2d 488, 693 N.Y.S.2d 460

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 488 (People v. Whiley) 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. Whiley, 264 A.D.2d 488, 693 N.Y.S.2d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered January 5, 1998, convicting him of petit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the testimony of the People’s witnesses was legally insufficient to establish that he stole the complainant’s jewelry (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gerofsky, 244 AD2d 569). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 trier of fact, 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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 (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered January 5, 1998, convicting him of petit larceny, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the testimony of the People’s witnesses was legally insufficient to establish that he stole the complainant’s jewelry (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gerofsky, 244 AD2d 569). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 trier of fact, 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 is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 488, 693 N.Y.S.2d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whiley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack