From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Huber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1994
201 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 14, 1994

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial establishes that on March 14, 1991, the defendant stole money from Alice Quinn at gunpoint. The defendant contends that the testimony of the defense witnesses was more credible than that of the witnesses for the prosecution. Issues of credibility as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Moreover, the discrepancies complained of between the defendant and the description the complainant gave to the police do not render her testimony infirm. The complainant had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the course of the robbery and made an unequivocal in-court identification of the defendant as the robber (see, People v. McNeil, 183 A.D.2d 790; People v. Delfino, 150 A.D.2d 718; see also, People v. Bennett, 161 A.D.2d 773; People v. Floyd, 143 A.D.2d 143, 144). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we do not find that he was denied a fair trial by virtue of, among other things, prosecutorial misconduct during summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Campbell, 200 A.D.2d 626).

We also find that under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843, 844), harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242), or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Huber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 14, 1994
201 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Huber

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STUART HUBER, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 14, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 806

Citing Cases

Huber v. Schriver

In a Decision and Order dated February 14, 1994, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed petitioner's…

People v. Avilla

blish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced at trial established that the…