People v. Corbin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corbin

90 A.D.3d 478, 934 N.Y.2d 389

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 478 (People v. Corbin) 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. Corbin, 90 A.D.3d 478, 934 N.Y.2d 389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The People established that the victim had a sufficient familiarity with defendant to make a confirmatory identification (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]). A few months before the crime the victim had a conversation with defendant about mating their dogs, after which the victim saw defendant many times in the neighborhood while defendant was driving his car. The victim also had a fight with defendant shortly before the [479]*479shooting, and was able to provide the investigating detective with defendant’s first name.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We reject defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the element of serious physical injury. Seventeen months after the shooting, the victim, a high school student, led a less active life than before the crime because he still suffered pain from his wound. This established a protracted impairment of health (see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; People v Graham, 297 AD2d 579, 580 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 535 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

The People established that the victim had a sufficient familiarity with defendant to make a confirmatory identification (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]). A few months before the crime the victim had a conversation with defendant about mating their dogs, after which the victim saw defendant many times in the neighborhood while defendant was driving his car. The victim also had a fight with defendant shortly before the [479]*479shooting, and was able to provide the investigating detective with defendant’s first name.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We reject defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting the element of serious physical injury. Seventeen months after the shooting, the victim, a high school student, led a less active life than before the crime because he still suffered pain from his wound. This established a protracted impairment of health (see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; People v Graham, 297 AD2d 579, 580 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 535 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 478, 934 N.Y.2d 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corbin-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack