People v. Hamer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hamer

141 A.D.2d 762, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7097

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

DecidedJune 20, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 762 (People v. Hamer) 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. Hamer, 141 A.D.2d 762, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered February 20, 1987, convicting him of assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction of assault in the second degree should be reduced to assault in the third degree because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he injured his victim with a dangerous instrument (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction for assault in the second degree. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered February 20, 1987, convicting him of assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction of assault in the second degree should be reduced to assault in the third degree because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he injured his victim with a dangerous instrument (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction for assault in the second degree. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 762, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamer-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack