From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Chicchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 2006
29 A.D.3d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2004-02680.

May 23, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered March 1, 2004, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (M. Chris Fabricant of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Lois M. Rowman on the brief), for respondent.

Before: Adams, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction under a theory of accomplice liability is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Seabrooks, 289 AD2d 515; see also People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shared the principal's culpable mental state and intentionally aided the principal ( see People v. Rossey, 89 NY2d 970; People v. Hart, 8 AD3d 402; People v. Jimenez, 245 AD2d 304). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).


Summaries of

People v. Chicchetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 2006
29 A.D.3d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Chicchetti

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY CHICCHETTI…

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

Date published: May 23, 2006

Citations

29 A.D.3d 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4101
814 N.Y.S.2d 542

Citing Cases

People v. Crewe

However, the defendant may not rely upon trial testimony to challenge a suppression ruling where, as here, he…