From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Folk

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 22, 2020
179 A.D.3d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

2014–05886 Ind.No. 9897/12

01-22-2020

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Calvin FOLK, Appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Stephen C. Childs ], of counsel), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Stephen C. Childs ], of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the count of kidnapping in the second degree merged with the counts of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Hanley , 20 N.Y.3d 601, 603, 964 N.Y.S.2d 491, 987 N.E.2d 268 ). In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v. Gonzalez , 80 N.Y.2d 146, 153, 589 N.Y.S.2d 833, 603 N.E.2d 938 ; People v. Riley , 70 N.Y.2d 523, 532, 522 N.Y.S.2d 842, 517 N.E.2d 520 ; People v. Toussaint , 306 A.D.2d 85, 759 N.Y.S.2d 861 ; People v. Tillman , 69 A.D.2d 975, 976, 416 N.Y.S.2d 102 ).

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying the defendant's request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress (see Penal Law § 40.00[1] ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable view of the evidence supported charging the jury with this affirmative defense (see People v. Jackson , 172 A.D.3d 748, 749, 97 N.Y.S.3d 493 ; People v. Fraser , 134 A.D.3d 734, 735, 22 N.Y.S.3d 70 ). "A defense of duress may not be used when the force or threat used is incapable of immediate realization" ( People v. Amato , 99 A.D.2d 495, 496, 470 N.Y.S.2d 441 ). Here, the defendant failed to present any evidence of an immediate threat, and his affirmative defense of duress relied on unspecific fears of future violence (see People v. Morrison , 133 A.D.3d 892, 893, 19 N.Y.S.3d 436 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Folk

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Jan 22, 2020
179 A.D.3d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

People v. Folk

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Calvin Folk, appellant.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2020

Citations

179 A.D.3d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
114 N.Y.S.3d 241
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 429