People v. Bertino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bertino

93 A.D.2d 972, 461 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17875

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

DecidedApril 1, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 93 A.D.2d 972 (People v. Bertino) 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. Bertino, 93 A.D.2d 972, 461 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the defense, we conclude that there is sufficient proof to sustain defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest (Penal Law, § 205.30). His arrest was authorized since the police had reasonable cause to believe that he had committed the crime of reckless endangerment (see GPL 140.10, subd 1, par [b]; Penal Law, § 120.20). His later acquittal of this charge is of no consequence (see People v Williams, [973]*97325 NY2d 86, 89-90). Defendant’s own testimony established that he was informed of the reason for his arrest (CPL 140.15, subd 2) "and supplied any alleged deficiency in the People’s proof (see People v Kirkpatrick, 32 NY2d 17, 21, app dsmd 414 US 948; People v Farina, 290 NY 272, 274). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — criminal mischief, third degree, and resisting arrest.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the defense, we conclude that there is sufficient proof to sustain defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest (Penal Law, § 205.30). His arrest was authorized since the police had reasonable cause to believe that he had committed the crime of reckless endangerment (see GPL 140.10, subd 1, par [b]; Penal Law, § 120.20). His later acquittal of this charge is of no consequence (see People v Williams, [973]*97325 NY2d 86, 89-90). Defendant’s own testimony established that he was informed of the reason for his arrest (CPL 140.15, subd 2) "and supplied any alleged deficiency in the People’s proof (see People v Kirkpatrick, 32 NY2d 17, 21, app dsmd 414 US 948; People v Farina, 290 NY 272, 274). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J. — criminal mischief, third degree, and resisting arrest.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.2d 972, 461 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bertino-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack