People v. Simon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simon

127 A.D.3d 887, 4 N.Y.S.3d 903

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

DecidedApril 8, 2015

Docket2012-11464

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 887 (People v. Simon) 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. Simon, 127 A.D.3d 887, 4 N.Y.S.3d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered December 18, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 75 [2002]). In particular, the evidence did not “demonstrate, first, that he . . . acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance and, second, that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for that disturbance” (People v Roche, 98 NY2d at 76; see People v Piquion, 283 AD2d 233 [2001]; cf. People v Sepe, 111 AD3d 75 [2013]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Miller, 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, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered December 18, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 75 [2002]). In particular, the evidence did not “demonstrate, first, that he . . . acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance and, second, that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for that disturbance” (People v Roche, 98 NY2d at 76; see People v Piquion, 283 AD2d 233 [2001]; cf. People v Sepe, 111 AD3d 75 [2013]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 887, 4 N.Y.S.3d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simon-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack