People v. Veeraswamy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Veeraswamy

11 A.D.3d 345, 784 N.Y.S.2d 488, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 345 (People v. Veeraswamy) 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. Veeraswamy, 11 A.D.3d 345, 784 N.Y.S.2d 488, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered September 26, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted a tape of a 911 call, made by a testifying declarant, under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The record establishes that the declarant, one of the victims of a home invasion robbery involving imminent danger to a young child, made the 911 call immediately after the crime while still under the stress and excitement resulting from the incident (see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302 [2003]; People v Valladi, 4 AD3d 195 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered September 26, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly admitted a tape of a 911 call, made by a testifying declarant, under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The record establishes that the declarant, one of the victims of a home invasion robbery involving imminent danger to a young child, made the 911 call immediately after the crime while still under the stress and excitement resulting from the incident (see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302 [2003]; People v Valladi, 4 AD3d 195 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 345, 784 N.Y.S.2d 488, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-veeraswamy-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack