People v. Azhar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Azhar

102 A.D.3d 633, 958 N.Y.S.2d 593

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 633 (People v. Azhar) 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. Azhar, 102 A.D.3d 633, 958 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered December 8, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of attempted robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict 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 jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence supports the inference that defendant shared his companions’ intent to forcibly steal property (see e.g. Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]). The only reasonable explanation for defendant’s conduct was that it was part of an attempted robbery.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Acosta, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered December 8, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts each of attempted robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict 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 jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence supports the inference that defendant shared his companions’ intent to forcibly steal property (see e.g. Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]). The only reasonable explanation for defendant’s conduct was that it was part of an attempted robbery.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Acosta, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 633, 958 N.Y.S.2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-azhar-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack