People v. Hassell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hassell

287 A.D.2d 267, 730 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9312

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 267 (People v. Hassell) 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. Hassell, 287 A.D.2d 267, 730 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

There was legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim had an ample opportunity to observe defendant and identified him within minutes of the crime a short distance from the crime scene. Moreover, defendant matched the description that the victim had given to the officers. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Lerner, 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 (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

There was legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim had an ample opportunity to observe defendant and identified him within minutes of the crime a short distance from the crime scene. Moreover, defendant matched the description that the victim had given to the officers. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 267, 730 N.Y.S.2d 511, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hassell-nyappdiv-2001.