Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Galdamez

261 A.D.2d 635

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1999-05-24
Topic
litigation

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.), rendered September 18/1997, convicting *636him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt with respect to his conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Galdamez. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.), rendered September 18/1997, convicting *636 him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt with respect to his conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.