People v Chambers (Gary)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Chambers (Gary) 2005 NYSlipOp 50966(U) Decided on June 24, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 24, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and COVELLO, JJ.
2004-882 S CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Gary Chambers, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Justice Court, Town of Southold, Suffolk County (W. Price, J.), rendered on May 28, 2004, convicting him of menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14 [1]) and imposing sentence.


Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

At the trial in this prosecution for menacing in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.14 [1]), the complainant testified that as he was securing his fishing boat at the dock where he had rented space, the defendant pointed a shotgun at him from approximately 35 feet away and yelled: "Get the f- out of here. I'm going to kill
you." The complainant stated that he was afraid of getting shot and was thinking of jumping into the water even though it was January. The defendant admitted that he had the shotgun with him but stated that he kept it by his side.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Issues of credibility are primarily for the trial court and its determination is entitled to great weight (People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v La Motte, 285 AD2d 814, 816 [2001]).
Decision Date: June 24, 2005

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.