People v. Zabala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zabala

303 A.D.2d 609, 756 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2652

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Zabala) 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. Zabala, 303 A.D.2d 609, 756 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered [610]*610February 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), robbery in the second degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Rivera, 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 [610]*610February 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), robbery in the second degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 609, 756 N.Y.S.2d 502, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zabala-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack