People v. Borrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Borrell

155 A.D.2d 290, 547 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14043

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 290 (People v. Borrell) 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. Borrell, 155 A.D.2d 290, 547 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Murray Myers, J.), rendered December 2, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing appellant as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 Vi to 7 years and a definite term of one year, respectively, and consecutively, [291]*291these sentences to run consecutively to a 90-day sentence imposed after appellant was adjudicated in criminal contempt three times on September 8, 1987, is unanimously affirmed.

Appellant’s conviction arose from his possession of a fully loaded, operable revolver on July 9, 1986. Following a high-speed motor chase, appellant was finally apprehended, after a struggle, in an apartment he had illegally entered. Appellant’s gun was found in the trunk of the livery cab he was driving. Appellant admitted that he had possessed the gun, which he said he kept for protection.

While appellant claims that the court below marshaled the evidence improperly, we find that the evidence and the parties’ contentions were impartially set forth. Appellant also maintains that the court’s charge on the "place of business” element of the crime of third degree gun possession was erroneous. However, as Trial Term found, the question whether the trunk was appellant’s place of business is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Under the instant circumstances, appellant was not entitled to, nor did he request, an instruction that, as a matter of law, the livery cab was a "place of business” for purposes of an exception to a gun possession charge. We have considered appellant’s other claims and find them to be of no merit.

Accordingly, the judgment convicting appellant is affirmed. Concur — Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Murray Myers, J.), rendered December 2, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing appellant as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 Vi to 7 years and a definite term of one year, respectively, and consecutively, [291]*291these sentences to run consecutively to a 90-day sentence imposed after appellant was adjudicated in criminal contempt three times on September 8, 1987, is unanimously affirmed.

Appellant’s conviction arose from his possession of a fully loaded, operable revolver on July 9, 1986. Following a high-speed motor chase, appellant was finally apprehended, after a struggle, in an apartment he had illegally entered. Appellant’s gun was found in the trunk of the livery cab he was driving. Appellant admitted that he had possessed the gun, which he said he kept for protection.

While appellant claims that the court below marshaled the evidence improperly, we find that the evidence and the parties’ contentions were impartially set forth. Appellant also maintains that the court’s charge on the "place of business” element of the crime of third degree gun possession was erroneous. However, as Trial Term found, the question whether the trunk was appellant’s place of business is a question of fact for the jury to determine. Under the instant circumstances, appellant was not entitled to, nor did he request, an instruction that, as a matter of law, the livery cab was a "place of business” for purposes of an exception to a gun possession charge. We have considered appellant’s other claims and find them to be of no merit.

Accordingly, the judgment convicting appellant is affirmed. Concur — Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 290, 547 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-borrell-nyappdiv-1989.