People v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ward

124 A.D.3d 809, 998 N.Y.S.2d 661

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2015

Docket2013-00596

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 809 (People v. Ward) 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. Ward, 124 A.D.3d 809, 998 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (St. George, J.), rendered December 13, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The complainant testified at trial that on January 9, 2012, at approximately 11:20 p.m., while he was walking on a street in Nassau County, he was approached by two men, one of whom was the defendant. The complainant testified that the defendant grabbed the complainant’s chain from around his neck, and the complainant felt a hard object being pressed into his chest or ribs, which he believed to be a gun. When two police officers approached in an unmarked vehicle, the defendant and his accomplice walked away. The police recovered the complainant’s chain nearby. The defendant and his accomplice were arrested shortly thereafter.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant forcibly stole property from the complainant, thereby establishing the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (see Penal Law §§ 160.05, 155.30 [5]; People v Rupert, 118 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2014]; People v Cusimano, 47 AD3d 725 [2008]; People v Simmons, 31 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2006]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Cusi *810 mano, 47 AD3d 725 [2008]; People v Simmons, 31 AD3d at 1053).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Duffy, 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 County Court, Nassau County (St. George, J.), rendered December 13, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The complainant testified at trial that on January 9, 2012, at approximately 11:20 p.m., while he was walking on a street in Nassau County, he was approached by two men, one of whom was the defendant. The complainant testified that the defendant grabbed the complainant’s chain from around his neck, and the complainant felt a hard object being pressed into his chest or ribs, which he believed to be a gun. When two police officers approached in an unmarked vehicle, the defendant and his accomplice walked away. The police recovered the complainant’s chain nearby. The defendant and his accomplice were arrested shortly thereafter.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant forcibly stole property from the complainant, thereby establishing the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (see Penal Law §§ 160.05, 155.30 [5]; People v Rupert, 118 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2014]; People v Cusimano, 47 AD3d 725 [2008]; People v Simmons, 31 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2006]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Cusi *810 mano, 47 AD3d 725 [2008]; People v Simmons, 31 AD3d at 1053).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 809, 998 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ward-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack