People v. Nealy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nealy

143 A.D.2d 1057, 533 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10818

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 A.D.2d 1057 (People v. Nealy) 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. Nealy, 143 A.D.2d 1057, 533 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered June 25, 1985, convicting him of assault in the third 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 evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that the victim suffered a physical injury (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; People v Greene, 70 NY2d 860; People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726, 727). The crime of assault in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 120.00 [2]) was properly submitted to the jury as a lesser included offense with respect to the charge of assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [2]; People v Leonardo, 60 NY2d 683, affg 89 AD2d 214 for reasons stated at App Div). The defendant’s contention that the verdict is repugnant to the extent that he was acquitted of intentional assault (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), but convicted of possession of a dangerous instrument with intent to use it unlawfully (see, Penal Law § 265.01 [2]) has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered June 25, 1985, convicting him of assault in the third 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 evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that the victim suffered a physical injury (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; People v Greene, 70 NY2d 860; People v Rojas, 61 NY2d 726, 727). The crime of assault in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 120.00 [2]) was properly submitted to the jury as a lesser included offense with respect to the charge of assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [2]; People v Leonardo, 60 NY2d 683, affg 89 AD2d 214 for reasons stated at App Div). The defendant’s contention that the verdict is repugnant to the extent that he was acquitted of intentional assault (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), but convicted of possession of a dangerous instrument with intent to use it unlawfully (see, Penal Law § 265.01 [2]) has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 1057, 533 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nealy-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack