Matter of Nikim

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Watson

    163 A.D.3d 855 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 51 times

    By way of background, we again observe that, during its direct case, the prosecution elicited testimony from Officer Muzikar that when the defendant exited the livery vehicle at the direction of the officers, he advised them that he was carrying a gun and that he was on his way to the precinct station house to turn the gun in for payment under the buyback program. Since this police testimony effectively raised on behalf of the defendant the defense of temporary lawful possession of the handgun pursuant to the exemption from criminal liability for a person engaged in the voluntary surrender of a weapon to the authorities (see Penal Law § 265.20[a][1][f] ), the burden was on the prosecution to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt (seeMatter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638, 639, 578 N.Y.S.2d 247 ; People v. Roccaforte, 141 A.D.2d 775, 775, 529 N.Y.S.2d 865 ; People v. Montgomery, 106 A.D.2d 410, 411, 482 N.Y.S.2d 331 ). The prosecution sought to sustain this burden by eliciting evidence demonstrating, inter alia, that the defendant's destination in the livery car was not the precinct station house, but an intersection bordering a public park that was located approximately one-half mile from the precinct station house.

  2. Matter of Aaron

    194 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    , People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was present at the time of the robbery of the complainant and participated in the crime as a lookout. Since the case was tried before a court without a jury, the greatest respect must be accorded the determination of the hearing court in assessing the credibility of the witness and resolving disputed questions of fact (see, Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

  3. Matter of Rah-Kin

    192 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

    The Family Court expressly found the officer to be credible and the appellant not to be credible. Great deference should be accorded to the Family Court's determinations in assessing credibility and resolving disputed questions of fact (Matter of Judah J., 182 A.D.2d 621; Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). Further, the decision of the Family Court is accorded the same weight as that given to a jury verdict (see, People v Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530; Matter of Jamal V., supra).

  4. Matter of Chaka

    187 A.D.2d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    The Family Court credited the complainant's testimony, and rejected the appellant's argument that the complainant had provided an inconsistent version of the offense to her school dean. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the fact-finder, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Moreover, since this case was tried before a court without a jury, the greatest respect must be accorded the determination of the hearing court in assessing the credibility of witnesses and resolving disputed questions of fact (Matter of Judah J., 182 A.D.2d 621, 622; Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

  5. Matter of Andre

    185 A.D.2d 810 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    The hearing court found the complainant's identification testimony to be credible, in that he watched the appellant on the bus and recognized him from school. The case was tried before a court without a jury and great respect must be accorded the determination of the hearing court in assessing credibility (see, Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

  6. Matter of Judah

    182 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the fact-finder, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Moreover, since this case was tried before a court without a jury, "great deference should be accorded the determination of the [hearing] court in assessing the credibility [of witnesses] and resolving disputed questions of fact" (Matter of Nikim A., 179 A.D.2d 638; Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court's determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.