From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mateen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 30, 1996
227 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 30, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).


Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence that defendant continued, by his presence in close proximity, to assist his companion after the larceny had taken on a clearly forcible character was sufficient to prove that defendant shared the intent of the companion to rob the victim, notwithstanding that it was only the companion who actually used force in wresting money from the victim ( see, People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830). The testimony of police officers that, prior to the subject robbery, they observed defendant and his companions staring at the pockets of elderly male passersby and then followed them, albeit descriptive of suspicious behavior, did not constitute evidence of uncharged crimes ( see, People v. Flores, 210 A.D.2d 1, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1031). Even if it did, it still would have been admissible as necessary to complete the narrative of the events surrounding the charged crime ( supra). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Mateen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 30, 1996
227 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Mateen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NUMAN MATEEN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 30, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

People v. Reid

The totality of the evidence, including defendant's proximity to the crime, his shout of "let's go," and his…

People v. Ortiz

Defendant's argument that he was deprived of the right to a fair trial because the officers testified about…