People v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McLaughlin

55 A.D.3d 377, 867 N.Y.S.2d 44

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 377 (People v. McLaughlin) 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. McLaughlin, 55 A.D.3d 377, 867 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 24, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of •3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. Defendant’s accessorial liability could be readily inferred from his course of conduct, which included, among other things, grabbing the victim’s bag (see e.g. Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]). Concur — Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Buckley, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 24, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of •3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. Defendant’s accessorial liability could be readily inferred from his course of conduct, which included, among other things, grabbing the victim’s bag (see e.g. Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]). Concur — Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Buckley, Sweeny and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 377, 867 N.Y.S.2d 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack