People v. Malave

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Malave

300 A.D.2d 412, 751 N.Y.S.2d 747

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 412 (People v. Malave) 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. Malave, 300 A.D.2d 412, 751 N.Y.S.2d 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered September 21, 2000, convicting him of 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.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in declining to give a charge on intoxication (see Penal Law § 15.25) is without merit, as the evidence was insufficient to conclude that a reasonable juror might find that the defendant’s intent was affected by the alcohol that he consumed (see People v Gaines, 83 NY2d 925; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918; People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Friedmann and Adams, 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 (Chambers, J.), rendered September 21, 2000, convicting him of 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.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in declining to give a charge on intoxication (see Penal Law § 15.25) is without merit, as the evidence was insufficient to conclude that a reasonable juror might find that the defendant’s intent was affected by the alcohol that he consumed (see People v Gaines, 83 NY2d 925; People v Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918; People v Perry, 61 NY2d 849). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 412, 751 N.Y.S.2d 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-malave-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack