People v. Bullard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bullard

264 A.D.2d 671, 696 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9536

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 671 (People v. Bullard) 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. Bullard, 264 A.D.2d 671, 696 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered July 16, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal did not specifically address the sufficiency of the evidence of physical injury, defendant has not preserved this issue and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the victim’s subjective expression of pain coupled with objective evidence provided ample evidence of physical injury (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630; People v Pope, 174 AD2d 319, lv denied 78 NY2d 1079).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered July 16, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal did not specifically address the sufficiency of the evidence of physical injury, defendant has not preserved this issue and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the victim’s subjective expression of pain coupled with objective evidence provided ample evidence of physical injury (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630; People v Pope, 174 AD2d 319, lv denied 78 NY2d 1079).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 671, 696 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bullard-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack