People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Young

269 A.D.2d 830, 703 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1760

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 830 (People v. Young) 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. Young, 269 A.D.2d 830, 703 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defense counsel’s general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case does not preserve for our review defendant’s present contention that the proof is legally insufficient to establish that defendant’s use of violence was intentional and for the purpose of overcoming or preventing resistance by the victim to the taking of his property (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). By failing to register any objection to County Court’s charge, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the charge was erroneous (see, People v McCall, 88 NY2d 838, 840). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.— [831]*831Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurl-butt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defense counsel’s general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case does not preserve for our review defendant’s present contention that the proof is legally insufficient to establish that defendant’s use of violence was intentional and for the purpose of overcoming or preventing resistance by the victim to the taking of his property (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). By failing to register any objection to County Court’s charge, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the charge was erroneous (see, People v McCall, 88 NY2d 838, 840). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.— [831]*831Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Pigott, Jr., Hurl-butt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 830, 703 N.Y.S.2d 787, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-young-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack