People v. Trotter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Trotter

24 A.D.3d 127, 804 N.Y.S.2d 245

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 127 (People v. Trotter) 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. Trotter, 24 A.D.3d 127, 804 N.Y.S.2d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered May 23, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The court reasonably could have concluded that defendant used force for the purpose of simultaneously retaining the shoplifted property and fleeing from the store (see e.g. People v Onorati, 15 AD3d 216 [2005]). The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the store detective gave contradictory testimony as to the sequence of events. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered May 23, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2½ to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The court reasonably could have concluded that defendant used force for the purpose of simultaneously retaining the shoplifted property and fleeing from the store (see e.g. People v Onorati, 15 AD3d 216 [2005]). The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the store detective gave contradictory testimony as to the sequence of events. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 127, 804 N.Y.S.2d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-trotter-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack