People v. Siler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Siler

76 A.D.2d 938, 429 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12048

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

DecidedJune 30, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 938 (People v. Siler) 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. Siler, 76 A.D.2d 938, 429 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered March 22, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of robbery in the first degree to a conviction of robbery in the third degree, and by vacating thé sentence imposed thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentence on the conviction of robbery in the third degree. The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that the object actually possessed by the defendant during the commission of the robbery was employed by him in such a manner as to render it a "dangerous instrument” within the purview of subdivision 13 of section 10.00 of the Penal Law. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of robbery in the first degree based upon his use or threatened immediate use of a "dangerous instrument” (see Penal Law, § 160.15, subd 3) cannot be sustained (see People v Castaldo, 72 AD2d 568; People v Cwikla, 60 AD2d 40, revd on other grounds 46 NY2d 434; see, also, People v Holmes, 71 AD2d 904; People v Green, 56 AD2d 610). However, the elements of robbery in the third degree were sufficiently established. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered March 22, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of robbery in the first degree to a conviction of robbery in the third degree, and by vacating thé sentence imposed thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentence on the conviction of robbery in the third degree. The evidence adduced at trial failed to establish that the object actually possessed by the defendant during the commission of the robbery was employed by him in such a manner as to render it a "dangerous instrument” within the purview of subdivision 13 of section 10.00 of the Penal Law. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of robbery in the first degree based upon his use or threatened immediate use of a "dangerous instrument” (see Penal Law, § 160.15, subd 3) cannot be sustained (see People v Castaldo, 72 AD2d 568; People v Cwikla, 60 AD2d 40, revd on other grounds 46 NY2d 434; see, also, People v Holmes, 71 AD2d 904; People v Green, 56 AD2d 610). However, the elements of robbery in the third degree were sufficiently established. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 938, 429 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-siler-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack