People v. You

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. You

270 A.D.2d 6, 703 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J., at hearing; Mary McGowan Davis, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 10, 1997, convicting defendant of kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. There was ample evidence supporting each element of kidnapping in the first degree.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. We find no evidence of suggestiveness with respect to any identification procedures. The circumstances of the identifications were properly established through the testimony of a detective who stated that at each procedure he spoke with the complainant through an interpreter (see, People v Delances, 262 AD2d 249, lv denied 93 NY2d 1044).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli 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 (Harold Beeler, J., at hearing; Mary McGowan Davis, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 10, 1997, convicting defendant of kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. There was ample evidence supporting each element of kidnapping in the first degree.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. We find no evidence of suggestiveness with respect to any identification procedures. The circumstances of the identifications were properly established through the testimony of a detective who stated that at each procedure he spoke with the complainant through an interpreter (see, People v Delances, 262 AD2d 249, lv denied 93 NY2d 1044).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

People v. You, 270 A.D.2d 6, 703 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 6 (People v. You) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related