People v. Dykes, 68 A.D.3d 1779 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Dykes, 68 A.D.3d 1779 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: AUCTER, STEVEN, PEOPLE v (nyappdiv, 2011-06-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" AUCTER, STEVEN, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the funds constituted restitution, we conclude that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review “ ‘inasmuch as he failed to object to the amount of restitution at sentencing or to request a hearing with respect thereto’ ” (People v Wright, 79 AD3d 1789 , 1790; see People v Hannig, 68 AD3d 1779, 1780 , lv denied 14 NY3d 801 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Aucter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the funds constituted restitution, we conclude that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review “ ‘inasmuch as he failed to object to the amount of restitution at sentencing or to request a hearing with respect thereto’ ” (People v Wright, 79 AD3d 1789 , 1790 [2010]; see People v Hannig, 68 AD3d 1779 , 1780 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 801 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Phillip K. Dykes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2009.
68 A.D.3d 1779
Published

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “Great deference is accorded to the jury’s resolution of credibility issues . . . , and it cannot be said herein that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (People v McKinnon, 15 AD3d 842, 842 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.