People v. Utsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Utsey

182 A.D.2d 575, 582 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6355

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

DecidedApril 28, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 575 (People v. Utsey) 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. Utsey, 182 A.D.2d 575, 582 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered November 8, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of arson in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a prison term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, including that of the threats defendant made to the complainant, was sufficient to permit the jury to ex-[576]*576elude to a moral certainty any reasonable explanation other than that defendant ignited the fire (see, People v Hoppe, 89 AD2d 670, 671). A jury could reasonably infer that by leaving a burning trash bag against the door of the complainant’s apartment, defendant intended that the building would be damaged by fire (see, People v Blum, 72 AD2d 691). We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that his sentence is excessive, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P.,-Carro, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered November 8, 1990, convicting defendant after a jury trial, of arson in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a prison term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, including that of the threats defendant made to the complainant, was sufficient to permit the jury to ex-[576]*576elude to a moral certainty any reasonable explanation other than that defendant ignited the fire (see, People v Hoppe, 89 AD2d 670, 671). A jury could reasonably infer that by leaving a burning trash bag against the door of the complainant’s apartment, defendant intended that the building would be damaged by fire (see, People v Blum, 72 AD2d 691). We have considered defendant’s other arguments, including that his sentence is excessive, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P.,-Carro, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 575, 582 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-utsey-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack