People v. Hansen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hansen

203 A.D.2d 588, 610 N.Y.S.2d 617

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 588 (People v. Hansen) 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. Hansen, 203 A.D.2d 588, 610 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered September 20, 1991, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the People’s evidence that he kicked the victim while wearing sneakers does not suffice to establish an assault "by means of a * * * dangerous instrument” (Penal Law § 120.00 [3]; see, Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). However, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Matter of Jason J., 187 AD2d 652, 653). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, we find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, 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 County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered September 20, 1991, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends on appeal that the People’s evidence that he kicked the victim while wearing sneakers does not suffice to establish an assault "by means of a * * * dangerous instrument” (Penal Law § 120.00 [3]; see, Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). However, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Matter of Jason J., 187 AD2d 652, 653). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, we find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 588, 610 N.Y.S.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hansen-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack