People v. Lavan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lavan

258 A.D.2d 631, 682 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 631 (People v. Lavan) 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. Lavan, 258 A.D.2d 631, 682 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered July 22, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are, in part, not properly before this Court and, in part, unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, there is no basis for reversal (see, CPL 450.15; People v Brinson, 177 AD2d 1019; People v Ramsey, 104 AD2d 388; CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, 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 (Wade, J.), rendered July 22, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are, in part, not properly before this Court and, in part, unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, there is no basis for reversal (see, CPL 450.15; People v Brinson, 177 AD2d 1019; People v Ramsey, 104 AD2d 388; CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 631, 682 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lavan-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack