People v. Richards

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Richards

    186 A.D.3d 1264 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

    DECISION & ORDERApplication by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 9, 2016 ( People v. Richards , 144 A.D.3d 844, 40 N.Y.S.3d ), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 18, 2014.ORDERED that the application is denied.

  2. People v. Richards

    2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 4354 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

    DECISION & ORDERApplication by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 9, 2016 ( People v. Richards, 144 A.D.3d 844, 40 N.Y.S.3d 544 ), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 18, 2014.ORDERED that the application is denied.

  3. People v. Rodriguez

    150 A.D.3d 1154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Rather, upon weighing the complainant's and the defendant's conflicting testimony, and reviewing the rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluating the strength of such conclusions (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we find that the Supreme Court was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Any minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony presented issues of credibility to be determined by the court, which had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ; People v. Richards, 144 A.D.3d 844, 846, 40 N.Y.S.3d 544 ), and we discern no basis on which to disturb the court's credibility determinations.The testimony of the investigating detective, who was re-called for rebuttal after having testified during the People's direct case, was admissible to refute the defendant's testimony that he did not own a phone at the time of the incident and had never seen the complainant before.

  4. People v. Rodriguez

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4149 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Rather, upon weighing the complainant's and the defendant's conflicting testimony, and reviewing the rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluating the strength of such conclusions (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we find that the Supreme Court was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Any minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony presented issues of credibility to be determined by the court, which had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Richards, 144 AD3d 844, 846), and we discern no basis on which to disturb the court's credibility determinations. The testimony of the investigating detective, who was re-called for rebuttal after having testified during the People's direct case, was admissible to refute the defendant's testimony that he did not own a phone at the time of the incident and had never seen the complainant before.