People v. Hirschhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hirschhorn

231 A.D.2d 591, 648 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9226

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 591 (People v. Hirschhorn) 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. Hirschhorn, 231 A.D.2d 591, 648 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9226 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered June 1, 1994, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim testified that as a result of the beating by the defendant, she was still suffering some loss of vision in her right eye nine months later, at the time of the trial. Thus, there was sufficient evidence of protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ (Penal Law §§ 120.10, 10.00 [10]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on all the counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered June 1, 1994, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim testified that as a result of the beating by the defendant, she was still suffering some loss of vision in her right eye nine months later, at the time of the trial. Thus, there was sufficient evidence of protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ (Penal Law §§ 120.10, 10.00 [10]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on all the counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 591, 648 N.Y.S.2d 34, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hirschhorn-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack