People v. Smith
| Citation | 135 A.D.3d 970,23 N.Y.S.3d 391 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ryan S. SMITH, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 January 2016 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
135 A.D.3d 970
23 N.Y.S.3d 391
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ryan S. SMITH, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 27, 2016.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth Budnitz of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, ROBERT J. MILLER, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered July 15, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree because the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the crime is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Delgado, 109 A.D.3d 483, 970 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator (see People v. Gilocompo, 125 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 4 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; People v. Delgado, 109 A.D.3d 483, 970 N.Y.S.2d 84 ; People v. Jenkins, 93 A.D.3d 861, 861, 940 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; People v. Amico, 78 A.D.3d 1190, 913 N.Y.S.2d 675 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hubsher
...516, 522, 46 N.Y.S.3d 493, 68 N.E.3d 1224 ; People v. Pagan , 45 N.Y.2d 725, 727, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299 ; People v. Smith , 135 A.D.3d 970, 971, 23 N.Y.S.3d 391 ). RIVERA, J.P., LASALLE, BARROS and IANNACCI, JJ.,...
-
People v. May
...349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators (see People v. Smith, 135 A.D.3d 970, 23 N.Y.S.3d 391 ; People v. Gilocompo, 125 A.D.3d 1000, 1001, 4 N.Y.S.3d 288 ; People v. Delgado, 109 A.D.3d 483, 970 N.Y.S.2d 84 ). Moreo......
-
People v. Morales, 2012–09054
...to the purportedly bolstering testimony is without merit (see People v. Cutting, 150 A.D.3d 873, 875, 56 N.Y.S.3d 315 ; People v. Smith, 135 A.D.3d 970, 971, 23 N.Y.S.3d 391 ; People v. Watson, 121 A.D.3d 921, 922, 993 N.Y.S.2d 384 ).The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred i......
-
People v. Drummond
...defense counsel neither requested a specific charge nor objected to the charge given by the court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Smith, 135 A.D.3d 970, 971, 23 N.Y.S.3d 391 ; People v. Terry, 122 A.D.3d 882, 883, 996 N.Y.S.2d 362 ; People v. Auguste, 294 A.D.2d 371, 372, 741 N.Y.S.2d 700 ).......