People v. Rodriguez

12 Citing cases

  1. People v. Nichols

    163 A.D.3d 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 20 times

    Preservation aside, the mixed verdicts provide no basis to question the legal sufficiency of the convictions (seeDiaz, 152 A.D.3d at 472, 59 N.Y.S.3d 30 ). In fact, defendant's argument is a classic "masked repugnancy" argument ( People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554, 554, 579 N.Y.S.2d 652 [1st Dept. 1992] ), and it suffers from the same premise error that dooms all "masked repugnancy" arguments: it assumes that a jury's verdict on one count can be weaponized to attack the legal or factual sufficiency of its verdict on another count. But that is not the law. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that "[f]actual inconsistency [in a verdict]—‘which can be attributed to mistake, confusion, compromise or mercy—does not provide a reviewing court with the power to overturn a verdict’ " on legal sufficiency grounds ( People v. Abraham, 22 N.Y.3d 140, 146, 978 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1 N.E.3d 797 [2013] [emphasis added], quoting People v. Muhammad, 17 N.Y.3d 532, 545, 935 N.Y.S.2d 526, 959 N.E.2d 463 [2011] ; see alsoPeople v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557, 561–563, 708 N.Y.S.2d 37, 729 N.E.2d 694 [2000] [same rule, with respect to factual sufficiency review] ).Abraham flatly rejected the very argument put forward by defendant here, i.e., that "factual inconsistency in the ver

  2. People v. Landa

    28 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 6 times

    05; People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v. Gillette, 8 AD3d 496). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. West, 233 AD2d 277; People v. Rodriguez, 179 AD2d 554). The County Court did not err in denying the defendant's request pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a for access to the personnel files of police officers who testified against him at trial ( see People v. Gissendanner, 48 NY2d 543). The defendant failed to make the required "clear showing of facts sufficient to warrant the judge to request records for review" (Civil Rights Law § 50-a; see People v. Gissendanner, supra; Lawrence v. City of New York, 118 AD2d 758).

  3. People v. Andolina

    23 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 7 times

    15; People v. Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 562; People v. Cannon, supra; People v. West, supra). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the acquittal on the robbery in the first degree count ( see Penal Law § 160.15) did not undermine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on the robbery in the third degree count ( see Penal Law § 160.05), of which the defendant was convicted ( see People v. Rayam, supra at 563; People v. Cannon, supra; People v. West, supra; People v. Rodriguez, 179 AD2d 554). Further, the defendant's argument that the court's excusal of four Orthodox Jewish prospective jurors because they could not serve on the upcoming Jewish holidays deprived him of his right to a jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05).

  4. People v. Cannon

    1 A.D.3d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    05; People v. Elmore, 269 A.D.2d 404; People v. Jackson, 211 A.D.2d 686; see also People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v. Stahl, 53 N.Y.2d 1048). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. West, 233 A.D.2d 277; People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554; see also People v. Montgomery, 116 A.D.2d 669). Moreover, 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; People v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557; People v. West, supra; see also People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the acquittal on one count did not undermine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence on the count of which the defendant was convicted ( see People v. Rayam, supra; People v. West, supra).

  5. Matter of Sean G

    262 A.D.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

    The court properly found that appellant was in possession of two quantities of stolen clothing with an aggregate value in excess of $1,000. There was ample evidence that appellant participated in the thefts of both quantities of clothing, as part of the same transaction. Contrary to appellant's unpreserved "masked repugnancy argument" ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554), the court's dismissal of certain counts does not undermine the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the count on which the court made a finding of guilt ( People v. Williams, 239 A.D.2d 271, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 899). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Mazzarelli, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

  6. People v. McKinson

    249 A.D.2d 27 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). The weight and sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict convicting defendant of resisting arrest was not undermined by defendant's acquittal of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the jury's inability to reach a verdict on the other counts (People v. Thomas, 239 A.D.2d 246, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 911). Defendant's "`masked repugnancy argument'" (People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554) "calls for an impermissible invasion of the jury's deliberative processes" (People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 377, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 875). Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

  7. People v. Jackson

    227 A.D.2d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

    The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We reject defendant's "masked repugnancy" argument based on his acquittal of robbery in the second degree ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554). Defendant's challenges to remarks made by the prosecutor during summation and to the court's charge are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit. The prosecutor's remarks were fair response to defense counsel's summation, and the court's charge, viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the People's burden of proof.

  8. People v. Furman

    224 A.D.2d 188 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 4 times

    In any event, defendant's convictions on four counts of robbery in the first degree were not repugnant with the codefendant's acquittals on the same counts, even though defendant and his codefendant were convicted of robbery in the second degree while aiding each other (Penal Law § 60.10), since the jury's disparate findings can be reconciled in light of the court's charge ( see, People v. Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006). In any event, the jury was entitled to exercise leniency regarding the codefendant as it saw fit ( see, People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7; People v Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554). Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

  9. People v. Roman

    217 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 7 times

    The record supports the hearing court's determination that the inspection sticker in question was not properly affixed to the windshield when the officers stopped the vehicle, and that the officers' testimony was not "`patently tailored to overcome constitutional objections'" ( People v. Jamal G., 196 A.D.2d 751, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 850). Defendant's "masked repugnancy argument" that the evidence was insufficient to support his guilt of possessing the victim's wallet and car because he was acquitted of the robbery charges is unpreserved as a matter of law ( People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554), and we would decline to reach it in the interest of justice. In any event, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to prove the elements of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, inasmuch as the victim's version of the events could be "parsed out and accepted on a piecemeal basis" ( People v. Green, 113 A.D.2d 713, 715). Furthermore, the jury may exercise leniency by convicting him of a lesser charge than is established by the evidence ( People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7).

  10. People v. Vasquez

    208 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred H. Kleiman, J.). The guilty verdict was neither based on legally insufficient evidence nor was it against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Even if it is assumed that the jury's acquittals of defendant on the manslaughter and other counts were based solely on the defense of justification, those acquittals would not undermine the weight or sufficiency of the evidence of unlawful intent required for conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (People v. Tomas, 186 A.D.2d 55, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 766; see also, People v Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 554). The court's decision to replace a juror, over defense objection, was based on ample proof, including the juror's own admissions and self-contradictory statements, taken together with other evidence, showing that the juror had engaged in substantial misconduct (CPL 270.35) by attempting to discuss the credibility of a principal witness with a fellow juror during trial (compare, People v. Fox, 172 A.D.2d 218, 219-220, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 966, with People v. Horney, 112 A.D.2d 841, 842-843).