People v. Verwayne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Verwayne

187 A.D.2d 743, 591 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13410

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 30, 1992·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered June 24, 1991, convicting him of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, since the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for disorderly conduct (see, People v Galpern, 259 NY 279; People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325; Matter of Leonard D., 185 AD2d 315), the arrest was authorized. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest was proper (see, Matter of Leonard D., supra; Matter of Charles M., 143 AD2d 96). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered June 24, 1991, convicting him of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, since the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant for disorderly conduct (see, People v Galpern, 259 NY 279; People v Todaro, 26 NY2d 325; Matter of Leonard D., 185 AD2d 315), the arrest was authorized. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest was proper (see, Matter of Leonard D., supra; Matter of Charles M., 143 AD2d 96). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

People v. Verwayne, 187 A.D.2d 743, 591 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

187 A.D.2d 743 (People v. Verwayne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related