From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Adames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 24, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Monserrate, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence that he caused "physical injury" to the complainant within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) when he struck the complainant on the back with a metal head golf club. However, since the defendant did not raise this ground in his motion for a trial order of dismissal, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the complainant suffered physical injury and to support the defendant's conviction of assault in the second degree (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; see also, People v. Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict on this count was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

The defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is also unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the evidence adduced at trial sufficiently established that the defendant's use of the golf club rendered it a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law § 10.00; People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113; People v. Naylor, 120 A.D.2d 940). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict on this count was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

Since the crimes for which the defendant received a consecutive sentence arose from the occurrence of separate and distinct acts, we find that the imposition of a consecutive sentence was legally permissible (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208; People v. Duhaney, 157 A.D.2d 665). Moreover, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Adames

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1992
180 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Adames

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICARDO ADAMES…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 441

Citing Cases

People v. Abussalam

Further, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable had the jury credited defendant's…

People v. Abussalam

Further, although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable had the jury credited defendant's…