People v. Allman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Allman

280 A.D.2d 384, 721 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1742

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 384 (People v. Allman) 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

People v. Allman, 280 A.D.2d 384, 721 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered August 7, 1998, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 2 to 4 years and IV2 to 3 years, concurrent with a term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evi[385]*385dence. Defendant’s pattern of conduct provided ample evidence that “with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm [the complainant]” defendant “repeatedly made telephone calls to [the complainant]” within the meaning of the statute.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered August 7, 1998, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 2 to 4 years and IV2 to 3 years, concurrent with a term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evi[385]*385dence. Defendant’s pattern of conduct provided ample evidence that “with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm [the complainant]” defendant “repeatedly made telephone calls to [the complainant]” within the meaning of the statute.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 384, 721 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack