People v. Crandall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crandall

135 A.D.2d 1084, 523 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52937

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 1084 (People v. Crandall) 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. Crandall, 135 A.D.2d 1084, 523 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52937 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals his conviction of robbery in the third degree. In affirming, we reject his contention that the stealing was not forcible within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.05.

[1085]*1085The evidence shows that defendant approached an elderly man who was selling poppies for disabled veterans and, pretending to buy a poppy, wrenched from the victim a transparent plastic bag containing the proceeds of the day’s sales. Two of the victim’s fingers had been inserted into holes in the bag and the bag was wrapped around the fingers. When defendant pulled the bag away he caused such pain to the victim that he thought his fingers were being broken. From this evidence we conclude that the jury was entitled to find that defendant, in stealing the bag, "use[d] * * * physical force upon [the victim] for the purpose of * * * overcoming resistance to the taking of the property” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]; see, People v Santiago, 48 NY2d 1023, affg 62 AD2d 572; cf., People v Davis, 71 AD2d 607), and thus, committed robbery.

We have examined the other arguments raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — robbery, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals his conviction of robbery in the third degree. In affirming, we reject his contention that the stealing was not forcible within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.05.

[1085]*1085The evidence shows that defendant approached an elderly man who was selling poppies for disabled veterans and, pretending to buy a poppy, wrenched from the victim a transparent plastic bag containing the proceeds of the day’s sales. Two of the victim’s fingers had been inserted into holes in the bag and the bag was wrapped around the fingers. When defendant pulled the bag away he caused such pain to the victim that he thought his fingers were being broken. From this evidence we conclude that the jury was entitled to find that defendant, in stealing the bag, "use[d] * * * physical force upon [the victim] for the purpose of * * * overcoming resistance to the taking of the property” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]; see, People v Santiago, 48 NY2d 1023, affg 62 AD2d 572; cf., People v Davis, 71 AD2d 607), and thus, committed robbery.

We have examined the other arguments raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — robbery, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 1084, 523 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crandall-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack