People v. Finger

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Finger

739 N.E.2d 290, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 2829

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 12, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by409 cases

This text of 739 N.E.2d 290 (People v. Finger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Finger, 739 N.E.2d 290, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 2829 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant contends that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence that his reckless conduct occurred “under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life” (Penal Law § 120.25). Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground “that the prosecution fail[ed] to prove each and every element of both counts of the indictment, beyond a reasonable doubt, as a matter of law.” Defendant’s general motion to dismiss is insufficient to preserve his argument for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859). Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant contends that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence that his reckless conduct occurred “under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life” (Penal Law § 120.25). Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground “that the prosecution fail[ed] to prove each and every element of both counts of the indictment, beyond a reasonable doubt, as a matter of law.” Defendant’s general motion to dismiss is insufficient to preserve his argument for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859). Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 N.E.2d 290, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 2829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-finger-ny-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack