weight of the evidence analysis in New York

2026By contrast, when conducting a weight of the evidence analysis, "this Court must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and then weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (<i>People <span>[*2]</span>v Mack</i>, 244 AD3d 1289 , 1290 [3d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; <i>see People v Bleakley</i>, 69 NY2d at 495 ).

2025Despite acknowledging a different verdict was possible in this highly fact-specific case, the majority's weight-of-the-evidence analysis recites the credible evidence without interrogating whether it actually permits a reasonable inference of an "utter disregard for human life," and without assessing the relative strength of the conflicting inference that flows from proof that defendant intended to cause a non-life-threatening physical injury — for example, defendant's instruction to the victim to get up after the stomp ( People v Maldonado , 24 NY3d at 53; see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [9]; 120.25 [

2022By contrast, "[i]n a weight of the evidence analysis, we view the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable; if a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Ferguson , 193 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]; see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348 ).

2022"In a weight of the evidence analysis, we view the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable; if a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Ferguson , 193 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2021] [citations omitted], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]; see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v Bleakley ,

2022Nevertheless, " a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the [charged] crimes" ( People v Cruz , 131 AD3d 724, 725 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; accord People v Delbrey , 179 AD3d at 1292-1293 ).

2020"However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Cruz , 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015] [citations omitted], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; accord People v Perillo , 144 AD3d 1399 , 1400 [2016], lvs denied 29 NY3d 948 , 951 [2017]).

2024The People conceded as much at oral argument, and the Appellate Division regularly and properly executes this task. [FN1] This Court reviews a weight of the evidence determination to assess whether the "order and writings of the intermediate appellate court manifest a lack of application of [its] review power" ( Romero , 7 NY3d at 646, quoting Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 496) [FN2] . "[W]e cannot review a weight of the evidence challenge unless the intermediate appellate court manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle" ( People v Kancharla , 23 NY3d 294, 30

2024This Court reviews a weight of the evidence determination to assess whether the "order and writings of the intermediate appellate court manifest a lack of application of [its] review power" ( Romero , 7 NY3d at 646 , quoting Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 496 ) [FN2] . "[W]e cannot review a weight of the evidence challenge unless the intermediate appellate court manifestly failed to consider the issue or did so using an incorrect legal principle" ( People v Kancharla , 23 NY3d 294, 303 [2014]).

2026"In a weight of the evidence analysis, we view the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable; if a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (<i>People v Ferguson</i>, 193 AD3d 1253, 1254 [3d Dept 2021] [citations omitted], <i>lv denied </i> 37 NY3d 964 [2021]; <i>see</i> <i>People v Goberdhan</i>, 241 AD3d

2022By contrast, "[i]n a weight of the evidence analysis, we view the evidence in a neutral light and determine whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable; if a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Ferguson , 193 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 964 [2021]; see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d at 348 ).

2022MacCracken v Miller , 291 NY 55, 62 [1943]; see People v Youngs , 175 AD3d 1604 , 1606 [2019]).

2022MacCracken v Miller , 291 NY 55, 62 [1943]; see People v Youngs , 175 AD3d 1604 , 1606 [2019]).

2013Turning to the weight of the evidence analysis, we are required to “weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions,” and “decide[ ] whether the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v Cahill, 2 NY3d 14, 58 [2003]).

2013Turning to the weight of the evidence analysis, we are required to “weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions,” and “decide[ ] whether the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v Cahill, 2 NY3d 14, 58 [2003]).

2026Defendant did not preserve his current legal sufficiency challenges by way of specific arguments in his motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of the People's proof, but "a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Doane , 212 AD3d 875, 876 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 NY3d 1154 [2023]).

2025"Nevertheless, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Doane , 212 AD3d 875, 876 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 NY3d 1154 [2023]) to ensure that they were "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v Marin , 239 AD3d 1028, 1029 [3d Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Hatch , 230 AD3d 908, 909 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1020 [2024]).

2023In determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, we first look to whether, "based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable" ( People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; accord People v Hardy , 57 AD3d 1100, 1102 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]).

2016If “a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we will weigh the probative force of conflicting testimony and the strength of conflicting inferences in determining whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence” (People v Shoemaker, 119 AD3d 1073 , 1074 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]; see People v Reeves, 124 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015]; People v Farnham, 136 AD3d at 1215-1216 ; see generally People v Hardy, 57 AD3d 1100, 1101-1102 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]).

2023In determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, we first look to whether, "based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable" ( People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; accord People v Hardy , 57 AD3d 1100, 1102 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]).

2016If “a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we will weigh the probative force of conflicting testimony and the strength of conflicting inferences in determining whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence” (People v Shoemaker, 119 AD3d 1073 , 1074 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]; see People v Reeves, 124 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015]; People v Farnham, 136 AD3d at 1215-1216 ; see generally People v Hardy, 57 AD3d 1100, 1101-1102 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 784 [2009]).

2019"In contrast, a weight of the evidence analysis requires us to first determine, based on all of the credible evidence, whether a different result would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Wilson , 164 AD3d 1012 , 1014 [2018] [citations omitted]; see People v Sanchez , 32 NY3d 1021, 1023 [2018]).

2019"In contrast, a weight of the evidence analysis requires us to first determine, based on all of the credible evidence, whether a different result would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Wilson , 164 AD3d 1012 , 1014 [2018] [citations omitted]; see People v Sanchez , 32 NY3d 1021, 1023 [2018]).

2021Under a weight of the evidence analysis, we must first determine whether, based on all of the credible evidence, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable and, if not, we then "weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v McMillan , 185 AD3d 1208 , 1209 [2020], lvs denied 35 NY3d 1112 , 1114 [2020]).

2021Nevertheless, when engaging in a weight of the evidence analysis, this Court necessarily determines whether each element of the charged crimes was proven beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v McMillan , 185 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2020], lvs denied 35 NY3d 1112 , 1114 [2020]).

2014It has long been the rule in New York that a weight of the evidence analysis in a homicide involves review of “the question as to the defendant’s guilt, as to the grade of his offense if he was guilty, as to his claim that he acted in self-defense or that the homicide was the result of accident” (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903] [emphasis added]; see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 640 [2006]).

2014It has long been the rule in New York that a weight of the evidence analysis in a homicide involves review of “the question as to the defendant’s guilt, as to the grade of his offense if he was guilty, as to his claim that he acted in self-defense or that the homicide was the result of accident” (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903] [emphasis added]; see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 640 [2006]).

1999A jury verdict should not be set aside unless the jury could not have reached the verdict it did on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 134 ).

1998The operative factor in the court’s determination as to whether to set aside a jury’s verdict is a finding that the jury could not have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Nicastro v Park, supra, at 134).” The Trial Judge correctly deferred to the jury’s verdict here, which was based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence and was not palpably incorrect.

2020"However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Cruz , 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015] [citations omitted], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; accord People v Perillo , 144 AD3d 1399 , 1400 [2016], lvs denied 29 NY3d 948 , 951 [2017]).

2019"However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Cruz , 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; accord People v Perillo , 144 AD3d at 1400; see generally People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]).

2013Because the jury did not render a verdict on the murder count, however, there is no verdict from the first trial to which to apply a weight-of-the-evidence test (cf. People v Mason, 101 AD3d 1659 , 1660 [2012], revel on other grounds 21 NY3d 962 [2013]; People v Scerbo, 74 AD3d 1730, 1732-1733 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 757 [2010]).

2013Because the jury did not render a verdict on the murder count, however, there is no verdict from the first trial to which to apply a weight-of-the-evidence test (cf. People v Mason, 101 AD3d 1659 , 1660 [2012], revel on other grounds 21 NY3d 962 [2013]; People v Scerbo, 74 AD3d 1730, 1732-1733 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 757 [2010]).

2025A directed verdict is a "pure question of law," requiring a determination that the jury's verdict was "utterly irrational" and there was "no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury" ( Killon v Parrotta, 28 NY3d 101, 107-108 [2016]; Blair v Coleman, 211 AD3d 671, 672 [2d Dept 2022]).

2025A directed verdict is a "pure question of law," requiring a determination that the jury's verdict was "utterly irrational" and there was "no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury" ( Killon v Parrotta, 28 NY3d 101, 107-108 [2016]; Blair v Coleman, 211 AD3d 671, 672 [2d Dept 2022]).

2025A directed verdict is a "pure question of law," requiring a determination that the jury's verdict was "utterly irrational" and there was "no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury" ( Killon v Parrotta, 28 NY3d 101, 107-108 [2016]; Blair v Coleman, 211 AD3d 671, 672 [2d Dept 2022]).

2025A directed verdict is a "pure question of law," requiring a determination that the jury's verdict was "utterly irrational" and there was "no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational persons to the conclusions reached by the jury" ( Killon v Parrotta, 28 NY3d 101, 107-108 [2016]; Blair v Coleman, 211 AD3d 671, 672 [2d Dept 2022]).

2023"Nevertheless, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Truitt , 213 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 39 NY3d 1144 [2023]).

2023In undertaking such review, we must first determine whether a contrary result would not be unreasonable, as is the case here, before then weighing the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" ( People v Truitt , 213 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 39 NY3d 1144 [2023]).

2023A weight of the evidence analysis requires us to "view the evidence in a neutral light and determine first whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony [*2]and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Barzee , 190 AD3d at 1017 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2022"In conducting a weight of the evidence review, we must view the evidence in a neutral light and determine first whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v Barzee , 190 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 36 NY3d 1094 [2021]; see People v Hilton , 185 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d

2023"Nevertheless, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Smith , 210 AD3d 1297, 1297 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2023"Nevertheless, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Smith , 210 AD3d 1297, 1297 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2022Nevertheless, "a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Delbrey , 179 AD3d 1292, 1292-1293 [3d Dept 2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 NY3d 969 [2020]).

2022Nevertheless, " a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the [charged] crimes" ( People v Cruz , 131 AD3d 724, 725 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; accord People v Delbrey , 179 AD3d at 1292-1293 ).

2018In contrast, a weight of the evidence analysis requires us to first determine, based on all of the credible evidence, whether a different result would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495 ; People v Perry , 154 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2017]).

2018In contrast, a weight of the evidence analysis requires us to first determine, based on all of the credible evidence, whether a different result would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495 ; People v Perry , 154 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2017]).

2016“However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes” (People v Cruz, 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; see People v Thiel, 134 AD3d 1237, 1239-1240 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1156 [2016]).

2016“However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes” (People v Cruz, 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; see People v Thiel, 134 AD3d 1237, 1239-1240 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1156 [2016]).

2016Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. * Defendant appears to acknowledge that his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]); regardless, “a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes” (People v Cruz, 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015]).

2015As an initial matter, defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence given that his motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s proof was not “specifically directed at the error [s] being urged” on appeal (People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Greenfield, 112 AD3d 1226 , 1226 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1037 [2014]). *725 However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to

2020"However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Cruz , 131 AD3d 724, 725 [2015] [citations omitted], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]; accord People v Perillo , 144 AD3d 1399 , 1400 [2016], lvs denied 29 NY3d 948 , 951 [2017]).

2019"However, a weight of the evidence challenge, which bears no preservation requirement, also [*2]requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence as to each element of the crimes" ( People v Perillo , 144 AD3d 1399 , 1400 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lvs denied 29 NY3d 948 , 951 [2017]; accord People v Cruz , 131 AD3d at 725 ).