From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acosta v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 2005
22 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6813, Claim 86740.

October 20, 2005.

Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (S. Michael Nadel, J.), entered on or about October 26, 2004, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the claim to recover for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act of 1984 (Court of Claims Act § 8-b), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Finz Finz, P.C., Jericho (Jay L. Feigenbaum of counsel), for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.


The trial court's conclusion that claimant failed to present sufficient evidence to meet his heavy burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit the crimes with which he was charged in the underlying prosecution (see Court of Claims Act § 8-b [c]; Reed v. State of New York, 78 NY2d 1) is supported by the record, and we decline to disturb it ( see Groce v. State of New York, 272 AD2d 519, 520; Taran v. State of New York, 186 AD2d 794, lv denied 83 NY2d 756). Claimant's proof of innocence, while plausible, was "equivocal and open to opposing inferences," thus rendering it insufficient to sustain his claim ( Alexandre v. State of New York, 168 AD2d 472, appeal dismissed 77 NY2d 925).


Summaries of

Acosta v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 20, 2005
22 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Acosta v. State

Case Details

Full title:HUMBERTO ACOSTA, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 20, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7791
801 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

VERA v. STATE OF NEW YORK

The evidence cannot be equivocal, contradictory or open to opposing inferences. See Acosta v State of New…

Turner v. State

That standard is defined by the Pattern Jury Instructions as one which satisfies the trier of fact that it is…