People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smith

69 A.D.3d 657, 891 N.Y.2d 294

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 657 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 69 A.D.3d 657, 891 N.Y.2d 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see People v Montero, 44 AD3d 796 [2007]). The defendant’s supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant such a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; People v Wright, 54 AD3d 695, 696 [2008]; People v Montero, 44 AD3d at 797).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of endangering the welfare of a child is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of endangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law § 260.10 [1]; People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 592 [2002]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on those counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Covello, J.P, Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence (see People v Montero, 44 AD3d 796 [2007]). The defendant’s supporting papers were conclusory and failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to warrant such a hearing (see CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; People v Wright, 54 AD3d 695, 696 [2008]; People v Montero, 44 AD3d at 797).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of endangering the welfare of a child is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt of endangering the welfare of a child (see Penal Law § 260.10 [1]; People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 592 [2002]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on those counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Covello, J.P, Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 657, 891 N.Y.2d 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack