In re David H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re David H.

99 A.D.3d 634, 952 N.Y.2d 880

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 634 (In re David H.) 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 David H., 99 A.D.3d 634, 952 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim made a prompt and reliable identification of appellant. The evidence established that appellant threatened the victim by displaying what appeared to be a pistol (see Penal Law § 120.14 [1]). The inability of the police to recover this object can be readily explained by the fact that appellant had an opportunity to separate himself from it.

[635]*635The court’s dismissal of the weapon possession count does not undermine the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the finding as to menacing. On the contrary, the mixed finding was logical and consistent with the evidence. The weapon charge required proof that the apparent firearm displayed by appellant was actually a weapon, as set forth in Penal Law § 265.01 (2). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, 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]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim made a prompt and reliable identification of appellant. The evidence established that appellant threatened the victim by displaying what appeared to be a pistol (see Penal Law § 120.14 [1]). The inability of the police to recover this object can be readily explained by the fact that appellant had an opportunity to separate himself from it.

[635]*635The court’s dismissal of the weapon possession count does not undermine the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the finding as to menacing. On the contrary, the mixed finding was logical and consistent with the evidence. The weapon charge required proof that the apparent firearm displayed by appellant was actually a weapon, as set forth in Penal Law § 265.01 (2). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 634, 952 N.Y.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-h-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack