People v. Cano

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Cano

911 N.E.2d 846, 12 N.Y.3d 876

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 11, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The defendant came “dangerously near” the commission of crimes when he arrived at the location of what he thought would be a sexual rendevous with an underage boy. The proof of defendant’s intent and extensive preparation followed by his travel to the intended crime scene showed that he was close to achieving his illegal goal and justified his convictions for attempt (P eople v Naradzay, 11 NY3d 460 [2008]).

The appellant’s other contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The defendant came “dangerously near” the commission of crimes when he arrived at the location of what he thought would be a sexual rendevous with an underage boy. The proof of defendant’s intent and extensive preparation followed by his travel to the intended crime scene showed that he was close to achieving his illegal goal and justified his convictions for attempt (P eople v Naradzay, 11 NY3d 460 [2008]).

The appellant’s other contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Cano, 911 N.E.2d 846, 12 N.Y.3d 876 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

911 N.E.2d 846 (People v. Cano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related