People v. Khan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Khan

256 A.D.2d 97, 682 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13265

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 97 (People v. Khan) 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. Khan, 256 A.D.2d 97, 682 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered December 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (four counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 18 years to life, 10 years to life and 2 to 4 years, to run concurrently with three concurrent terms of 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence, including defendant’s menacing of the victim, supporting the element of defendant’s intent to intentionally aid the codefendant in the commission of the first-degree robbery. Since defendant was convicted of a “dangerous instrument” robbery (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]), his unpreserved contention that the court should have charged the affirmative defense to Penal Law § 160.15 (4) is meritless.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The lineup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered December 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (four counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 18 years to life, 10 years to life and 2 to 4 years, to run concurrently with three concurrent terms of 10 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence, including defendant’s menacing of the victim, supporting the element of defendant’s intent to intentionally aid the codefendant in the commission of the first-degree robbery. Since defendant was convicted of a “dangerous instrument” robbery (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]), his unpreserved contention that the court should have charged the affirmative defense to Penal Law § 160.15 (4) is meritless.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The lineup was not unduly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336, cert denied 498 US 833).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 97, 682 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-khan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack