In re Carlos S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carlos S.

57 A.D.3d 211, 868 N.Y.2d 638

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 211 (In re Carlos S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Carlos S., 57 A.D.3d 211, 868 N.Y.2d 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Appellant’s physical acts of interference with the officers’ performance of their duty clearly satisfied the elements of Penal Law § 195.05 (see Matter of Quaniqua W., 25 AD3d 380 [2006]). The court’s dismissal of a resisting arrest charge does not warrant a different conclusion, because appellant’s argument in this regard merely speculates as to the reason for the dismissal (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]), and, in any event, because resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration have different elements (see Matter of Johnetta T., 192 AD2d 416 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freed man, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Appellant’s physical acts of interference with the officers’ performance of their duty clearly satisfied the elements of Penal Law § 195.05 (see Matter of Quaniqua W., 25 AD3d 380 [2006]). The court’s dismissal of a resisting arrest charge does not warrant a different conclusion, because appellant’s argument in this regard merely speculates as to the reason for the dismissal (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]), and, in any event, because resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration have different elements (see Matter of Johnetta T., 192 AD2d 416 [1993]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Freed man, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 211, 868 N.Y.2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlos-s-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack