People v. McNair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McNair

244 A.D.2d 576, 665 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11797

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 576 (People v. McNair) 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. McNair, 244 A.D.2d 576, 665 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), rendered February 10, 1994, as amended March 8, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced by the People was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, 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 (Patterson, J.), rendered February 10, 1994, as amended March 8, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced by the People was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 576, 665 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcnair-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack