Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Santana

People v. Santana

2017 NY Slip Op 494, 146 A.D.3d 990, 44 N.Y.S.3d 915
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 25, 2017
Docket2013-08742
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 494 (People v. Santana) 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. Santana, 2017 NY Slip Op 494, 146 A.D.3d 990, 44 N.Y.S.3d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered August 8, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Bolling, 7 NY3d 874 [2006]; People v Stoney, 72 AD3d 708 [2010]; People v Barreto, 70 AD3d 574 [2010]; People v Spells, 66 AD3d 924 [2009]; People v O’Henry, 13 AD3d 470 [2004]; People v Suphal, 7 AD3d 547 [2004]). The evidence was also legally sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the complainant sustained a serious physical injury {see Penal Law § 10.00 [10]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990]; People v Payne, 115 AD3d 439 [2014]; People v Rosa, 112 AD3d 551 [2013]; People v Meneses, 195 AD2d 527 [1993]; People v Blunt, 176 AD2d 741 [1991]).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to *991 view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Under the circumstances of this case, including the serious nature of the crime, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender treatment, and we decline to disturb that determination (see CPL 720.20 [1]; People v Bae, 137 AD3d 804 [2016]; People v Almonte, 122 AD3d 870 [2014]; People v Williams, 110 AD3d 746 [2013]; People v Huffman, 47 AD3d 646 [2008]; People v Thompson, 16 AD3d 603 [2005]; People v Ortega, 114 AD2d 912 [1985]).

Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Mateo
811 N.E.2d 1053 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Almonte
122 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Bae
137 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Bolling
859 N.E.2d 913 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Kern
554 N.E.2d 1235 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People v. Suphal
7 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. O'Henry
13 A.D.3d 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Thompson
16 A.D.3d 603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Huffman
47 A.D.3d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Spells
66 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Barreto
70 A.D.3d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Stoney
72 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Ortega
114 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Blunt
176 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Williams
110 A.D.3d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Rosa
112 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Meneses
195 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 494, 146 A.D.3d 990, 44 N.Y.S.3d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santana-nyappdiv-2017.