People v. Haney
| Decision Date | 18 June 1990 |
| Citation | 556 N.Y.S.2d 939,162 A.D.2d 613 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James HANEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Beverly Van Ness, of counsel), for appellant.
William L. Murphy, Dist. Atty., Staten Island (Karen F. McGee and Elva Feliciano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KOOPER, RUBIN and MILLER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered May 18, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. The record reveals that the defendant struck the victim, knocking him to the ground, after which he removed money and car keys from the victim's pocket. While the victim was still on the ground, the defendant placed his hand inside his pocket and gestured in such a way that the victim believed he may have had a gun. As he gestured, the defendant warned the victim, "[d]on't let me hurt you".
Although there were certain inconsistencies in the victim's testimony with regard to his perception of the defendant's hand gesture, the clear import of the victim's testimony was that he feared that the defendant may have had a gun secreted in his pocket. Moreover, a contrary conclusion is not required because the complainant stated on cross-examination that he had not "decided" that the object displayed actually "looked like" a gun (People v. Bynum, 125 A.D.2d 207, 209, 509 N.Y.S.2d 321, affd. 70 N.Y.2d 858, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4; People v. Mercado, 148 A.D.2d 365, 366, 539 N.Y.S.2d 323). As the Court of Appeals has recently noted, "an object can be 'displayed' without actually being seen by the victim even in outline" ( see, People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 222, 538 N.Y.S.2d 788, 535 N.E.2d 1328). Rather, "[a]ll that is required is that the defendant, by his actions, consciously manifest the presence of an object to the victim in such a way that the victim reasonably perceives that the defendant has a gun" ( see, People v. Lopez, supra, at 222, 538 N.E.2d 788, 535 N.E.2d 1328; People v. Mercado, supra, 148 A.D.2d at 366, 539 N.Y.S.2d 323; People v. Smith, 142 A.D.2d 619, 530 N.Y.S.2d 275). Notably, "[w]hen these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aaron v. Kelly, 98 Civ. 0538(LMM).
...is covered" by the law. People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d at 381, 469 N.Y.S.2d at 650, 457 N.E.2d 752. Thus, in People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d 613, 556 N.Y.S.2d 939 (2d Dep't 1990), the defendant knocked the victim down, took his money, then put his hand in his pocket, gestured and said to the ......
-
People v. Smith
...N.Y.S.2d 87, 699 N.E.2d 447 [1998] ; People v. Avilla, 234 A.D.2d 45, 45, 650 N.Y.S.2d 674 [1st Dept.1996] ; People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d 613, 613–614, 556 N.Y.S.2d 939 [2d Dept.1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 940, 563 N.Y.S.2d 69, 564 N.E.2d 679 [1990] ).Defendant's secondary argument concernin......
-
People v. Smith
...N.Y.S.2d 87, 699 N.E.2d 447 [1998] ; People v. Avilla, 234 A.D.2d 45, 45, 650 N.Y.S.2d 674 [1st Dept.1996] ; People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d 613, 613–614, 556 N.Y.S.2d 939 [2d Dept.1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 940, 563 N.Y.S.2d 69, 564 N.E.2d 679 [1990] ).Defendant's secondary argument concernin......
-
Miaram v. New York
...the victim that the robber is armed with a firearm." People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 220-21 (1989); see also People v. Haney, 162 A.D.2d 613, 613-14 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1990) (upholding conviction for first-degree robbery when the defendant put his hand in his pocket, gestured in a man......