People v. Curry

• Decision Date: 18 December 2013
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mustafa CURRY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 843
976 N.Y.S.2d 571
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08455

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Mustafa CURRY, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 18, 2013.

[976 N.Y.S.2d 572]

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered January 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the facts, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings consistent with CPL 160.50.

“Upon [a] defendant's request, the Appellate Division must conduct a weight of the evidence review” and, thus, “a defendant will be given one appellate review of adverse factual findings” (People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1; seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 636, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902). If a finding in favor of the defendant would not have been unreasonable, then this Court “must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluate the strength of such conclusions” (People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1). Once this Court conducts such an analysis, it must then decide whether the verdict finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt was warranted. “Essentially,” this Court “sits as a thirteenth juror and decides which facts were proven at trial” ( id., citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652; see People v. Noble, 86 N.Y.2d 814, 815, 633 N.Y.S.2d 469, 657 N.E.2d 490). If it appears that the fact-finder failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then this Court may set aside the verdict ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Upon conducting our analysis in this case in accordance with the foregoing principles, we find that the verdict convicting the defendant of...