People v. Canteen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Canteen

280 A.D.2d 679, 721 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1804

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 679 (People v. Canteen) 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. Canteen, 280 A.D.2d 679, 721 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester [680]*680County (Dillon, J.), rendered December 19, 1997, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, menacing in the second degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that so much of the verdict as convicted him of assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) is inconsistent with the verdict acquitting him of certain robbery charges is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746), and we decline to review in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester [680]*680County (Dillon, J.), rendered December 19, 1997, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, menacing in the second degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that so much of the verdict as convicted him of assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) is inconsistent with the verdict acquitting him of certain robbery charges is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745, 746), and we decline to review in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 679, 721 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-canteen-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack