People v. Friello, 147 A.D.3d 1519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · Go Syfert
People v. Friello, 147 A.D.3d 1519 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Torres (nyappdiv, 2022-12-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Torres
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Even assuming, arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we conclude that, 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]), it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). " 'Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence,' we must afford great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Maldonado
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The testimony of the People's witnesses was not "incredible as a matter of law, i.e., it was not impossible of belief because it is manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" ( People v Resto , 147 AD3d 1331, 1334 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1000 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). " 'Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence,' we must afford great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their tes…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tripp
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Although defendant identifies reasons to question the witnesses' veracity, "the testimony of the People's witnesses was not incredible as a matter of law, i.e., it was not impossible of belief because it is manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory" ( People v Perkins , 160 AD3d 1455 , 1457 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1151 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Resto , 147 AD3d 1331 , 1334 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1000 [2017], reconsideration denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]; People v Griffin , 128 AD3d 1218, 1219-1220 […
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Twillie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, but that the jury nonetheless “did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” (People v Friello, 147 AD3d 1519, 1520 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1031 [2017]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
John Friello
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 10, 2017.
147 A.D.3d 1519
Centra, Dejoseph, Nemoyer, Troutman, Whalen.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*1520] Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Douglas A. Randall, J.), rendered April 30, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, driving while intoxicated as a class E felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of intoxication. We reject that contention. “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence,” we must afford great deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony and observe their demeanor (People v Harris, 15 AD3d 966, 967 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005]). It was for the jury to determine whether to credit the testimony of the arresting officer that defendant exhibited a number of signs of intoxication, or the testimony of defendant’s acquaintances that he did not appear to be intoxicated (see People v Shelton, 111 AD3d 1334, 1336 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1025 [2014]). The jury was also entitled to consider, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, defendant’s refusal to participate in field sobriety tests (see generally People v Berg, 92 NY2d 701, 706 [1999]), or to submit to a chemical test (see People v McGraw, 57 AD3d 1516, 1517 [2008]). Thus, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see People v Stevens, 109 AD3d 1204, 1205 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1043 [2014]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.