People v. Hassett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hassett

144 A.D.2d 385, 533 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11207

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 385 (People v. Hassett) 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. Hassett, 144 A.D.2d 385, 533 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered December 19, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to adduce sufficient proof to support his conviction of attempted robbery in the third degree. 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. The victim testified on direct examination that he was walking down the street carrying a television set given to him for repair. The defendant approached him, told him he was going to take the set, pushed him to the ground and grabbed it. The fact that the victim was able to run after the defendant and to get the television set back does not negate the evidence that the defendant intended to forcibly steal the set (see, People v Dingle, 122 AD2d 280, lv denied 68 NY2d 1000). Kunzeman, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper 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 (Clabby, J.), rendered December 19, 1984, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to adduce sufficient proof to support his conviction of attempted robbery in the third degree. 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. The victim testified on direct examination that he was walking down the street carrying a television set given to him for repair. The defendant approached him, told him he was going to take the set, pushed him to the ground and grabbed it. The fact that the victim was able to run after the defendant and to get the television set back does not negate the evidence that the defendant intended to forcibly steal the set (see, People v Dingle, 122 AD2d 280, lv denied 68 NY2d 1000). Kunzeman, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 385, 533 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hassett-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack