People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arroyo

124 A.D.2d 806, 508 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62129

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 806 (People v. Arroyo) 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. Arroyo, 124 A.D.2d 806, 508 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Despite the fact that burglary in the second degree may be committed by either entering or remaining unlawfully on the premises (Penal Law § 140.25), the instant indictment charged that the defendant had "entered and remained unlawfully” (emphasis supplied). The trial court did not err, however, in instructing the jury that they could render a verdict of guilty upon either finding (see, People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321; People v Rooney, 57 NY2d 822). Nor did it abuse its discretion (see, People v Reising, 106 AD2d 522) in refusing to adjourn the imposition of sentence, since the information in the presentence report which the defendant sought to controvert had no effect on the sentencing decision. The sentence imposed does not warrant modification on appeal (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Despite the fact that burglary in the second degree may be committed by either entering or remaining unlawfully on the premises (Penal Law § 140.25), the instant indictment charged that the defendant had "entered and remained unlawfully” (emphasis supplied). The trial court did not err, however, in instructing the jury that they could render a verdict of guilty upon either finding (see, People v Charles, 61 NY2d 321; People v Rooney, 57 NY2d 822). Nor did it abuse its discretion (see, People v Reising, 106 AD2d 522) in refusing to adjourn the imposition of sentence, since the information in the presentence report which the defendant sought to controvert had no effect on the sentencing decision. The sentence imposed does not warrant modification on appeal (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 806, 508 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arroyo-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack