People v. Zappia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zappia

199 A.D.2d 559, 608 N.Y.S.2d 97

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 559 (People v. Zappia) 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. Zappia, 199 A.D.2d 559, 608 N.Y.S.2d 97 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered July 18, 1991, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s generalized motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of trial was insufficient to preserve his claim of legal insufficiency for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Sutton, 161 AD2d 612; People v McCord, 160 AD2d 736). Moreover, upon the [560]*560exercise 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]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered July 18, 1991, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s generalized motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of trial was insufficient to preserve his claim of legal insufficiency for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Sutton, 161 AD2d 612; People v McCord, 160 AD2d 736). Moreover, upon the [560]*560exercise 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]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 559, 608 N.Y.S.2d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zappia-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack