People v. Vicenty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vicenty

18 A.D.3d 402, 795 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5807

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

DecidedMay 31, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 402 (People v. Vicenty) 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. Vicenty, 18 A.D.3d 402, 795 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered July 19, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the jury had a rational basis upon which to find that defendant acted recklessly (see People v Sullivan, 68 NY2d 495 [1986]).

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court’s justification charge and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that the charge, viewed as a whole, adequately explained the objective and subjective aspects of the justification defense (see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 [1986]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered July 19, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the jury had a rational basis upon which to find that defendant acted recklessly (see People v Sullivan, 68 NY2d 495 [1986]).

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court’s justification charge and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that the charge, viewed as a whole, adequately explained the objective and subjective aspects of the justification defense (see People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 [1986]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 402, 795 N.Y.S.2d 447, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vicenty-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack