People v. Santi D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santi D.

80 A.D.3d 489, 914 N.Y.S.2d 627

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.3d 489 (People v. Santi D.) 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. Santi D., 80 A.D.3d 489, 914 N.Y.S.2d 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Foley, J.), rendered December 1, 2008, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, adjudicating him a youthful offender, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence warranted the inference that while defendant may have been motivated by anger, he acted with the intent to prevent a public servant from performing an official function (see Matter of Garrick B., 30 AD3d 217 [2006]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Foley, J.), rendered December 1, 2008, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, adjudicating him a youthful offender, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence warranted the inference that while defendant may have been motivated by anger, he acted with the intent to prevent a public servant from performing an official function (see Matter of Garrick B., 30 AD3d 217 [2006]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 489, 914 N.Y.S.2d 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santi-d-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack