People v. Pender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pender

291 A.D.2d 574, 737 N.Y.S.2d 878

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 574 (People v. Pender) 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. Pender, 291 A.D.2d 574, 737 N.Y.S.2d 878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered September 9, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s generalized motion to “dismiss the case” was insufficient to preserve for appellate review his claim that the People failed to provide legally sufficient evidence that he was in actual or constructive possession of a weapon (see, People v Robinson, 220 AD2d 699). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial 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]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Goldstein, 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 (Greenberg, J.), rendered September 9, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s generalized motion to “dismiss the case” was insufficient to preserve for appellate review his claim that the People failed to provide legally sufficient evidence that he was in actual or constructive possession of a weapon (see, People v Robinson, 220 AD2d 699). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial 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]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Florio and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 574, 737 N.Y.S.2d 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pender-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack