The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94 [1903]). The evidence warrants the conclusion that defendant knew that he had been permanently prohibited from entering the store in question, and that he nevertheless entered the store with the contemporaneous intent...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.