People v. Belasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Belasquez

266 A.D.2d 557, 698 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 557 (People v. Belasquez) 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. Belasquez, 266 A.D.2d 557, 698 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered January 28, 1998, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree since the evidence failed to satisfy that element of Penal Law § 160.15 (4) which requires that a defendant “[d]isplay what appears to be a * * * firearm”. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; see also, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), rendered January 28, 1998, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree since the evidence failed to satisfy that element of Penal Law § 160.15 (4) which requires that a defendant “[d]isplay what appears to be a * * * firearm”. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; see also, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 557, 698 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-belasquez-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack