People v. Salas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salas

192 A.D.2d 627, 596 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3608

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 12, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered July 8, 1991, convicting him of assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s general motion for a trial order of dismissal was insufficient to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of assault in the third degree (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. As to the conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, 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 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Santucci, 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, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered July 8, 1991, convicting him of assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s general motion for a trial order of dismissal was insufficient to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence of assault in the third degree (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice. As to the conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, 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 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

People v. Salas, 192 A.D.2d 627, 596 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3608 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

192 A.D.2d 627 (People v. Salas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related