People v. Binghampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Binghampton

289 A.D.2d 170, 735 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12748

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 170 (People v. Binghampton) 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. Binghampton, 289 A.D.2d 170, 735 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered April 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, eight years and five years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Issues concerning identification were properly presented to the jury and there is no reason to disturb its findings. The victim had a suitable opportunity to observe defendant during the crime and was able to make a reliable identification.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered April 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, eight years and five years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Issues concerning identification were properly presented to the jury and there is no reason to disturb its findings. The victim had a suitable opportunity to observe defendant during the crime and was able to make a reliable identification.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 170, 735 N.Y.S.2d 381, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-binghampton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack