People v. Zarzuela

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zarzuela

123 A.D.3d 1155, 997 N.Y.S.2d 639

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2015

Docket2008-02075

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 1155 (People v. Zarzuela) 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. Zarzuela, 123 A.D.3d 1155, 997 N.Y.S.2d 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*1156 Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), rendered October 4, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People established a sufficient foundation to admit into evidence recorded telephone calls the defendant made while incarcerated (see People v Collins, 90 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2011]; see also People v Vasser, 97 AD3d 767, 768 [2012]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

*1156 Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), rendered October 4, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People established a sufficient foundation to admit into evidence recorded telephone calls the defendant made while incarcerated (see People v Collins, 90 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2011]; see also People v Vasser, 97 AD3d 767, 768 [2012]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 1155, 997 N.Y.S.2d 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zarzuela-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack