People v. Parisi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parisi

281 A.D.2d 903, 722 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2828

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 903 (People v. Parisi) 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. Parisi, 281 A.D.2d 903, 722 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree (see generally, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to lead a rational person to the conclusion that defendant caused the victim’s injuries (see, People v Thomas, 274 AD2d 761, 763). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [3]) and assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree (see generally, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to lead a rational person to the conclusion that defendant caused the victim’s injuries (see, People v Thomas, 274 AD2d 761, 763). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Assault, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 903, 722 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parisi-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack