People v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stewart

293 A.D.2d 263, 739 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408

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

DecidedApril 2, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 263 (People v. Stewart) 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. Stewart, 293 A.D.2d 263, 739 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered September 11, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years with five years post-release supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim’s identification of defendant was particularly reliable because she recognized him as a person she had seen in front of her place of work on numerous prior occasions.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered September 11, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of eight years with five years post-release supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification. The victim’s identification of defendant was particularly reliable because she recognized him as a person she had seen in front of her place of work on numerous prior occasions.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 263, 739 N.Y.S.2d 270, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stewart-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack