Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d 1664 (Monroe)
Additionally, given the relative strength of the victims’ identifications, and the corroborating circumstantial evidence that defendant and codefendant were acquaintances who acted in concert to set up and execute the robbery of the victims, we reject defendant's contention that the lack of forensic evidence renders the verdict against the weight of the evidence (seeKindred , 60 A.D.3d at 1241, 876 N.Y.S.2d 177 ; People v. Lunetta , 38 A.D.3d 1303, 1305, 832 N.Y.S.2d 358 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 987, 838 N.Y.S.2d 490, 869 N.E.2d 666 [2007] ). We also reject defendant's contention that the conviction of assault in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of serious physical injury (seePeople v. Felong , 192 A.D.3d 1664, 1665-1666, 144 N.Y.S.3d 515 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955, 147 N.Y.S.3d 538, 170 N.E.3d 412 [2021] ; see generallyJoyce , 150 A.D.3d at 1633, 54 N.Y.S.3d 472 ). Defendant contends that the court erred in directing that the sentence on the count of assault in the first degree (assault of the female victim) run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the count of assault in the second degree (assault of the male victim).
Additionally, given the relative strength of the victims' identifications, and the corroborating circumstantial evidence that defendant and codefendant were acquaintances who acted in concert to set up and execute the robbery of the victims, we reject defendant's contention that the lack of forensic evidence renders the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see Kindred, 60 A.D.3d at 1241; People v Lunetta, 38 A.D.3d 1303, 1305 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 987 [2007]). We also reject defendant's contention that the conviction of assault in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of serious physical injury (see People v Felong, 192 A.D.3d 1664, 1665-1666 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]; see generally Joyce, 150 A.D.3d at 1633). Defendant contends that the court erred in directing that the sentence on the count of assault in the first degree (assault of the female victim) run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the count of assault in the second degree (assault of the male victim).
Additionally, given the relative strength of the victims' identifications, and the corroborating circumstantial evidence that defendant and codefendant were acquaintances who acted in concert to set up and execute the robbery of the victims, we reject defendant's contention that the lack of forensic evidence renders the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see Kindred, 60 A.D.3d at 1241; People v Lunetta, 38 A.D.3d 1303, 1305 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 987 [2007]). We also reject defendant's contention that the conviction of assault in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of serious physical injury (see People v Felong, 192 A.D.3d 1664, 1665-1666 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 955 [2021]; see generally Joyce, 150 A.D.3d at 1633). Defendant contends that the court erred in directing that the sentence on the count of assault in the first degree (assault of the female victim) run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the count of assault in the second degree (assault of the male victim).