People v. Cotton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cotton

51 A.D.2d 750, 379 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11286

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 750 (People v. Cotton) 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. Cotton, 51 A.D.2d 750, 379 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 16, 1973, upon resentence, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree and the sentence thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. We have already held, on the facts of a similar case, that the defendant could not have committed robbery in the first degree without at the same time having committed grand larceny in the third degree. (People v Matos, 50 AD2d 872). We so hold here (see People v Grier, 37 NY2d 847). Accordingly, the guilty verdict on the robbery count requires that the lesser included count be dismissed. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 16, 1973, upon resentence, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree and the sentence thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. We have already held, on the facts of a similar case, that the defendant could not have committed robbery in the first degree without at the same time having committed grand larceny in the third degree. (People v Matos, 50 AD2d 872). We so hold here (see People v Grier, 37 NY2d 847). Accordingly, the guilty verdict on the robbery count requires that the lesser included count be dismissed. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 750, 379 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cotton-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack