People v. Brewer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brewer

295 A.D.2d 1013, 743 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6227

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 1013 (People v. Brewer) 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. Brewer, 295 A.D.2d 1013, 743 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Wyoming County Court (Dadd, J.), entered January 23, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]) based on the conduct of defendant that caused injury to his two-month-old daughter. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly admitted evidence that he was previously convicted of endangering the welfare of a child for engaging in conduct injurious to his son (see People v Caccese, 211 AD2d 976, 977-978, lv denied 86 NY2d 780). That evidence was relevant to show the absence of accident or mistake (see id.; see also People v Henson, 33 NY2d 63, 71-73; People v Holloway, 185 AD2d 646, 647, lv denied 80 NY2d 1027), and the probative value of that evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55; Holloway, 185 AD2d at 647). The contention of defendant that he was denied his rights to due process and a fair trial when the court dismissed the charges against the codefendant, raised for the first time in his motion to set aside the verdict (see CPL 330.30 [1]), is not preserved for our review [1014]*1014(see 470.05 [2]; People v Laraby, 92 NY2d 932, 933). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Wyoming County Court (Dadd, J.), entered January 23, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]) based on the conduct of defendant that caused injury to his two-month-old daughter. Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly admitted evidence that he was previously convicted of endangering the welfare of a child for engaging in conduct injurious to his son (see People v Caccese, 211 AD2d 976, 977-978, lv denied 86 NY2d 780). That evidence was relevant to show the absence of accident or mistake (see id.; see also People v Henson, 33 NY2d 63, 71-73; People v Holloway, 185 AD2d 646, 647, lv denied 80 NY2d 1027), and the probative value of that evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice (see People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 55; Holloway, 185 AD2d at 647). The contention of defendant that he was denied his rights to due process and a fair trial when the court dismissed the charges against the codefendant, raised for the first time in his motion to set aside the verdict (see CPL 330.30 [1]), is not preserved for our review [1014]*1014(see 470.05 [2]; People v Laraby, 92 NY2d 932, 933). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 1013, 743 N.Y.S.2d 920, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brewer-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack