People v. Mask

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mask

7 A.D.3d 281, 776 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6541

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

DecidedMay 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 281 (People v. Mask) 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. Mask, 7 A.D.3d 281, 776 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered January 24, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to argue that the similarities between the two robberies warranted an inference that they were committed by the same person, so that the evidence as to each robbery tended to prove the other. The pattern was sufficiently distinctive so as to [282]*282be probative of defendant’s identity (see People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 253 [1982]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered January 24, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to argue that the similarities between the two robberies warranted an inference that they were committed by the same person, so that the evidence as to each robbery tended to prove the other. The pattern was sufficiently distinctive so as to [282]*282be probative of defendant’s identity (see People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 253 [1982]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 281, 776 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mask-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack