People v. Cato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cato

287 A.D.2d 415, 731 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118

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

DecidedOctober 30, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 415 (People v. Cato) 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. Cato, 287 A.D.2d 415, 731 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered December 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe defendant and made a reliable identification immediately after the crime. Furthermore, the circumstances under which defendant was apprehended provided substantial corroboration.

The police officer’s testimony that, during a canvass of the area, he arrested defendant after conversing with the complainant was admissible to complete the narrative and explain the events leading to defendant’s arrest (see, People v Parris, 247 AD2d 221, 222, lv denied 91 NY2d 944; People v Jones, 160 AD2d 333, lv denied 76 NY2d 790). In any event, there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the challenged testimony.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered December 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe defendant and made a reliable identification immediately after the crime. Furthermore, the circumstances under which defendant was apprehended provided substantial corroboration.

The police officer’s testimony that, during a canvass of the area, he arrested defendant after conversing with the complainant was admissible to complete the narrative and explain the events leading to defendant’s arrest (see, People v Parris, 247 AD2d 221, 222, lv denied 91 NY2d 944; People v Jones, 160 AD2d 333, lv denied 76 NY2d 790). In any event, there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the challenged testimony.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 415, 731 N.Y.S.2d 729, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cato-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack