People v. Hart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hart

298 A.D.2d 119, 747 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 119 (People v. Hart) 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. Hart, 298 A.D.2d 119, 747 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered February 16, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s justification charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court correctly included an instruction on the duty to retreat (see People v Hernandez, 98 NY2d 175) and sufficiently instructed the jurors to consider the subjective factors involved in the circumstances facing the defendant at the time of the assault.

We would note that the area where the complaining witness was assaulted was not under defendant’s exclusive possession and control, a necessary predicate to fall within the statutory definition of “dwelling.” Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered February 16, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s justification charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court correctly included an instruction on the duty to retreat (see People v Hernandez, 98 NY2d 175) and sufficiently instructed the jurors to consider the subjective factors involved in the circumstances facing the defendant at the time of the assault.

We would note that the area where the complaining witness was assaulted was not under defendant’s exclusive possession and control, a necessary predicate to fall within the statutory definition of “dwelling.” Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 119, 747 N.Y.S.2d 379, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hart-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack