People v. Kimbro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kimbro

220 A.D.2d 690, 632 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10555

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 690 (People v. Kimbro) 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. Kimbro, 220 A.D.2d 690, 632 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered November 30, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding the fifth count of grand larceny in the fourth degree was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, 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 defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and, in any event, are without merit (see, People v Cappetta, 86 AD2d 876, 877). Altman, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, 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, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered November 30, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding the fifth count of grand larceny in the fourth degree was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, 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 defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and, in any event, are without merit (see, People v Cappetta, 86 AD2d 876, 877). Altman, J. P., Hart, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 690, 632 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kimbro-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack