People v. Wynter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wynter

265 A.D.2d 435, 696 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10186

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 435 (People v. Wynter) 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. Wynter, 265 A.D.2d 435, 696 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered August 23, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gulotta, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery in the second degree, the defendant caused the complainant physical injury (see, Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]; § 10.00 [9]; People v Spence, 251 AD2d 604).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 (Kowtna, J.), rendered August 23, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Gulotta, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery in the second degree, the defendant caused the complainant physical injury (see, Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]; § 10.00 [9]; People v Spence, 251 AD2d 604).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 435, 696 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wynter-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack