People v. Oberbeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oberbeck

284 A.D.2d 957, 726 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the burglarized premises constituted a “dwelling” as defined in Penal Law § 140.00 (3) (see, Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; People v Hodgins, 277 AD2d 911; People v Windbush, 202 AD2d 527, 528, lv denied 83 NY2d 878; see generally, People v Quattlebaum, 91 NY2d 744, 746-748). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that the burglarized premises constituted a “dwelling” as defined in Penal Law § 140.00 (3) (see, Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; People v Hodgins, 277 AD2d 911; People v Windbush, 202 AD2d 527, 528, lv denied 83 NY2d 878; see generally, People v Quattlebaum, 91 NY2d 744, 746-748). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

People v. Oberbeck, 284 A.D.2d 957, 726 N.Y.S.2d 321, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

284 A.D.2d 957 (People v. Oberbeck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related