People v. Cassidy

50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11621
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 803 (People v. Cassidy) 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. Cassidy, 50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 30, 1975, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, assault in the second degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of kidnapping in [804]*804the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing the count therefor in the indictment. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for proceedings to direct defendant to surrender himself to said court in order that execution of the judgment be commenced or resumed (CPL 460.50, subd 5). The proof of kidnapping in the second degree (Penal Law, § 135.20) was insufficient, since the evidence showed that any detention of the victim was incidental to the commission of the crimes of assault and attempted sexual abuse (People v Lombardi, 20 NY2d 266; People v Levy, 15 NY2d 159; People v Watts, 48 AD2d 863; People v Usher, 49 AD2d 499). The trial court’s ruling on defendant’s Sandoval application was not an abuse of discretion (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371). The admission of third-party bolstering testimony of Detectives Flynn and Morris was error (People v Caserta, 19 NY2d 18), but must be deemed harmless in view of the adequate opportunity afforded the complainant during the commission of the crime to identify the perpetrator. That she had in fact carefully observed him during that time was manifested by (a) her ability shortly thereafter to furnish a full description and (b) her strong identification testimony at the trial (cf. People v Caserta, supra). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur. [80 Misc 2d 713.]

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

Related

People v. Watson
57 A.D.2d 143 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People of State of New York v. Brinson
55 A.D.2d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People v. Jackson
54 A.D.2d 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People v. Ghee
53 A.D.2d 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People v. Dolan
51 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.2d 803, 375 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cassidy-nyappdiv-1975.