People v. Andrades
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 02791 (People v. Andrades) 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.
Opinion
| People v Andrades |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 02791 |
| Decided on May 7, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on May 7, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LOURDES M. VENTURA
JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.
2022-06321
(Ind. No. 70110/21)
v
Juan Andrades, appellant.
Jonathan Rosenberg, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Anthony P. Parisi, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered July 6, 2022, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, attempted rape in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1]) and attempted rape in the second degree (id. §§ 110.00, 130.30) beyond a reasonable doubt. From the evidence presented, a jury could logically conclude that the defendant intended to engage in sexual intercourse with the complainant by forcible compulsion, and that he came dangerously close to the completion of that act (see People v Duncan, 188 AD3d 1249, 1250). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to attempted rape in the first degree and attempted rape in the second degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, VENTURA and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 02791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andrades-nyappdiv-2025.