People v. Peters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peters

173 A.D.2d 573

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

DecidedMay 13, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 573 (People v. Peters) 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. Peters, 173 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.), rendered June 23, 1989, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully entered the home where the complainant resided and caused physical injury to an occupant thereof (see, Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). 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]). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, 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 (Zweibel, J.), rendered June 23, 1989, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully entered the home where the complainant resided and caused physical injury to an occupant thereof (see, Penal Law § 140.30 [2]). 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]). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peters-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack