From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Surdak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1990
167 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 13, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant's contention that he could not have formed a conscious intent to cause physical injury because of his mental illness, and therefore, that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence of his guilt of assault in the first degree. 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. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). While the defendant's pyschiatric experts testified at trial that he suffered from a "schizo-affective" disorder, the People's expert diagnosed his condition as a borderline personality disorder, and opined that at the time the defendant stabbed the victim, he had substantial capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of his conduct, and to know that his conduct was wrong.

As a general rule, where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime is primarily for the jury, which has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert (see, People v. Hull, 162 A.D.2d 550; People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461; People v. Briecke, 143 A.D.2d 1025). Where, as here, there is no serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the resolution of the trier-of-fact on the issue of mental disease or defect will not be disturbed (see, People v. Hull, supra; People v. Ludwigsen, 159 A.D.2d 591).

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

We have examined the defendant's remaining contention, and find that it is not preserved for appellate review. Eiber, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Surdak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1990
167 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Surdak

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDDIE SURDAK, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 840

Citing Cases

People v. James

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of murdering her two infant daughters and attempting to murder her…

People v. Ginsberg

The People offered expert testimony to rebut the testimony of the defense expert that the defendant suffered…