People v. Kranenburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kranenburg

89 A.D.2d 509, 453 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17546

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 509 (People v. Kranenburg) 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. Kranenburg, 89 A.D.2d 509, 453 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Grey, J.), rendered January 15, 1980, after a jury trial, convicting both defendants of two counts of robbery in the first degree and sentencing the defendant, Kranenburg, as a second felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of 8 to 16 years and the defendant, Nixon, to concurrent indeterminate terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously modified, on the law, by reducing the convictions from robbery in the first degree to robbery in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed and remitting for resentencing as to said second degree count for both defendants and otherwise affirmed. The defendants were convicted of robbery in the first degree on the first count under Indictment No. 1099/79, stemming from a robbery of a tuxedo rental store on April 19, 1979 and on the second count for the robbery of a delicatessen on April 28, 1979. The defendants requested a charge of robbery in the second degree on the theory of the gun being unloaded. The request was denied on the basis that section 160.15 of the Penal Law provides that it is an affirmative defense that the gun was unloaded, which affirmative defense must be presented and proved by the defendants. The court being properly apprised of the defendants’ contention, the affirmative defense should have been presented to the jury, provided the evidence indicated the possibility of such a defense. {People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888; People v Lockwood, 52 NY2d 790.) With respect to the delicatessen robbery, the defendant Kranenburg’s statement, in his videotaped confession, was to the effect that the pistol was unloaded. Accordingly, there was a basis for the charge on that count. Therefore, we reduce to robbery in the second degree the judgment on that count only and remand for resentencing as to both defendants as to that. We have examined the other contentions of the defendants and find them without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Lupiano and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgments of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Grey, J.), rendered January 15, 1980, after a jury trial, convicting both defendants of two counts of robbery in the first degree and sentencing the defendant, Kranenburg, as a second felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of 8 to 16 years and the defendant, Nixon, to concurrent indeterminate terms of 4 to 12 years, unanimously modified, on the law, by reducing the convictions from robbery in the first degree to robbery in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed and remitting for resentencing as to said second degree count for both defendants and otherwise affirmed. The defendants were convicted of robbery in the first degree on the first count under Indictment No. 1099/79, stemming from a robbery of a tuxedo rental store on April 19, 1979 and on the second count for the robbery of a delicatessen on April 28, 1979. The defendants requested a charge of robbery in the second degree on the theory of the gun being unloaded. The request was denied on the basis that section 160.15 of the Penal Law provides that it is an affirmative defense that the gun was unloaded, which affirmative defense must be presented and proved by the defendants. The court being properly apprised of the defendants’ contention, the affirmative defense should have been presented to the jury, provided the evidence indicated the possibility of such a defense. {People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888; People v Lockwood, 52 NY2d 790.) With respect to the delicatessen robbery, the defendant Kranenburg’s statement, in his videotaped confession, was to the effect that the pistol was unloaded. Accordingly, there was a basis for the charge on that count. Therefore, we reduce to robbery in the second degree the judgment on that count only and remand for resentencing as to both defendants as to that. We have examined the other contentions of the defendants and find them without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Lupiano and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 509, 453 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kranenburg-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack