People v. Salomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salomon

249 A.D.2d 335, 670 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3616

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

DecidedApril 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 335 (People v. Salomon) 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. Salomon, 249 A.D.2d 335, 670 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered December 7, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

After a jury trial, the defendant and his codefendant, Derek Mackey, were convicted of first and second degree robbery in connection with a gunpoint robbery on a Queens street. The defendant’s contention that his guilt was not proven by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evi[336]*336dence 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 conviction must be reversed, however, because he was substantially prejudiced by the People’s delay in providing Rosario material (see, People v Mackey, 249 AD2d 329 [decided herewith]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, 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, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered December 7, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

After a jury trial, the defendant and his codefendant, Derek Mackey, were convicted of first and second degree robbery in connection with a gunpoint robbery on a Queens street. The defendant’s contention that his guilt was not proven by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858). In any event, viewing the evi[336]*336dence 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 conviction must be reversed, however, because he was substantially prejudiced by the People’s delay in providing Rosario material (see, People v Mackey, 249 AD2d 329 [decided herewith]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 335, 670 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salomon-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack