People v. Capone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Capone

114 A.D.2d 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53052

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 373 (People v. Capone) 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. Capone, 114 A.D.2d 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 19, 1983, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, when viewed most favorably to the People and bearing in mind that the credibility, reliability and weight of the evidence was for the jury, the evidence adduced at trial was of sufficient quantity and quality to support the verdict (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 327; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, the court’s Sandoval ruling permitting inquiry into a prior usury conviction and the underlying facts of a larceny charge dismissed in satisfaction of defendant’s plea of guilty to said usury charge was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Alberti, 77 AD2d 602, cert denied 449 US 1018).

Finally, the sentence imposed by the court was not unduly harsh under the circumstances. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered September 19, 1983, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, when viewed most favorably to the People and bearing in mind that the credibility, reliability and weight of the evidence was for the jury, the evidence adduced at trial was of sufficient quantity and quality to support the verdict (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied — US —, 105 S Ct 327; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620). Moreover, the court’s Sandoval ruling permitting inquiry into a prior usury conviction and the underlying facts of a larceny charge dismissed in satisfaction of defendant’s plea of guilty to said usury charge was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371; People v Alberti, 77 AD2d 602, cert denied 449 US 1018).

Finally, the sentence imposed by the court was not unduly harsh under the circumstances. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-capone-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack