People v. Lazaro
| Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
| Citation | 4 N.Y.S.3d 300,125 A.D.3d 1008,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01671 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. Nayely LAZARO, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, and Lori Glachman of counsel), for appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Riviezzo, J.), dated December 10, 2012, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 290.10 and CPL 330.30(1) which was to set aside a jury verdict convicting her of attempted assault in the first degree and to dismiss that count of the indictment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
The defendant and Irene Bailon were accused of acting in concert in their physical attacks upon Lucero Felipe and Ruby Arriaga, wherein the defendant cut Felipe beneath the left eye and Bailon cut Arriaga beneath the left eye. The altercation occurred not long after a fight between Bailon and Felipe, after which Bailon returned to the scene with the defendant and others. Felipe testified at trial that during the altercation, the defendant had used “a box cutter or something like that” to cut her under the left eye, though the defendant testified that she “[broke] a fingernail on Felipe's face” during the fight while trying to push Felipe off her. Arriaga testified that she was cut under the left eye from Bailon's use of a shiny, small razor, and Arriaga's sibling, Leslie Moposita, testified that Bailon struck Arriaga “with something.”
The defendant was acquitted by the jury of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree as to the altercation with Felipe, convicted of assault in the third degree as to Felipe, and convicted under an acting in concert theory of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree in connection with Bailon's altercation with Arriaga.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 290.10 and CPL 330.30 which was to set aside the jury verdict convicting her of attempted assault in the first degree and to dismiss that count of the indictment. The People appeal.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 290.10(1), the trial court must review the legal sufficiency of the evidence as defined by CPL 70.10(1), accepting the competent evidence as true, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jenkins
...to speculate that defendant had become aware of Mack's spontaneous use of a knife during the altercation (see People v. Lazaro, 125 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 4 N.Y.S.3d 300 [2d Dept. 2015] ; compare People v. Lavayen, 200 A.D.3d 1069, 1070–1071, 155 N.Y.S.3d 802 [2d Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3......
- People v. Lazaro
-
People v. Tan
...favorable to the People," compels the conclusion that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge (People v. Lazaro, 125 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 4 N.Y.S.3d 300 ). Finally, we reject the People's contention that permitting their appeal would not be contrary to principles of double j......
-
People v. Vomvos
...as defined by CPL 70.10(1), accepting the competent evidence as true, in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Lazaro, 125 A.D.3d 1008, 1008, 4 N.Y.S.3d 300 ; People v. Singh, 191 A.D.2d 731, 595 N.Y.S.2d 510 ). In order to prove the defendant's guilt of scheme to defraud in......