People v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 13 July 1990
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles PATTERSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 349

558 N.Y.S.2d 349

163 A.D.2d 816

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles PATTERSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 13, 1990.

Robert Kirchner, Syracuse, for appellant.

Robert E. Wildridge by Lisa Sapino, Syracuse, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and DENMAN, GREEN, PINE and LOWERY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

There is no merit to defendant's claim that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that the People established that defendant and codefendant forcibly deprived the complainant of the use of his truck, caused substantial damage to it and caused the complainant physical injury. That was sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of robbery in the second degree (People v. Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860, 523 N.Y.S.2d 458, 517 N.E.2d 1344; People v. Thompson, 145 A.D.2d 952, 536 N.Y.S.2d 322, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 983, 540 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 538 N.E.2d 369), and the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Finally, use in a photo array of a photograph retained by authorities in violation of CPL 160.50 does not require per se suppression of complainant's in-court identification of defendant (see, People v. Dozier, 131 A.D.2d 587, 516 N.Y.S.2d 295, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 711, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1046, 513 N.E.2d 1314; People v. London, 124 A.D.2d 254, 508 N.Y.S.2d 262, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 1001, 510 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 503 N.E.2d 131).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.