People v. Casarrubia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Casarrubia

117 A.D.3d 1072, 986 N.Y.S.2d 344

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 2014·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens [1073] County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered May 29, 2012, convicting him of menacing in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Aviles, 87 AD3d 547 [2011]; People v Chardon, 83 AD3d 954, 956 [2011]; People v Rivera, 78 AD3d 969 [2010]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Rivera, J.P, Austin, Roman and Hinds-Radix, 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 Supreme Court, Queens [1073] County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered May 29, 2012, convicting him of menacing in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Aviles, 87 AD3d 547 [2011]; People v Chardon, 83 AD3d 954, 956 [2011]; People v Rivera, 78 AD3d 969 [2010]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Rivera, J.P, Austin, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

People v. Casarrubia, 117 A.D.3d 1072, 986 N.Y.S.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

117 A.D.3d 1072 (People v. Casarrubia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related