From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1983
93 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

April 18, 1983


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.), rendered June 12, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of assault in the second degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. As the People concede in their brief, on the facts of this case defendant could not have committed burglary in the first degree, predicated upon physical injury caused to the victim, without also having committed assault in the second degree. Thus, that assault conviction is an inclusory concurrent count of the burglary conviction, and must be dismissed (CPL 300.40, subd 3, par [b]; People v Banks, 77 A.D.2d 742; People v Davis, 73 A.D.2d 674; People v Thorpe, 72 A.D.2d 590; People v James, 70 A.D.2d 939; People v Thompson, 59 A.D.2d 672; People v Ayala, 56 A.D.2d 561). We have considered defendant's other contentions, and find them to be without merit. Gibbons, J.P., Gulotta, O'Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1983
93 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

People v. Jordan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEROY JORDAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 18, 1983

Citations

93 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

People v. Simpson

Thus, considered as a whole, the court's charge does not warrant reversal (see, People v. Harris, 171 A.D.2d…

People v. Franklin

Suppression of the property seized from the defendant was, therefore, properly denied. The defendant is…