From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 2002
292 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-05471

February 25, 2002

March 11, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered September 25, 2000, convicting him of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Randall D. Unger, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Debra J. Kondel of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his argument that the evidence was legally insufficient. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 presented by the People provided ample proof upon which the jury could reject any innocent interpretation of the defendant's statements to the complaining witness. Moreover, issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94; People v. Martinez, 210 A.D.2d 508). 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).

The defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel. Where, as here, "the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation", the constitutional requirement of effective assistance of counsel is satisfied (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).


Summaries of

People v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 2002
292 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. DEVENDRA SINGH, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 868

Citing Cases

People v. Singh

February 9, 2010. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Cummings

05; People v. Henderson, 265 A.D.2d 573; People v. Johnson, 169 A.D.2d 779). In any event, viewing the…