People v. Arroyo

124 A.D.2d 806, 508 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62129
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 24, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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).

124 A.D.2d 806 (People v. Arroyo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Bynum
2019 NY Slip Op 3067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Ellington
143 A.D.2d 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Felton
141 A.D.2d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)