People v. Yusuf
| Decision Date | 20 March 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01865,961 N.Y.S.2d 316,104 A.D.3d 881 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Aadam YUSUF, appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gottlieb & Gordon, New York, N.Y. (Robert C. Gottlieb and Derrelle M. Janey of counsel), for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered March 2, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgement is affirmed.
This criminal proceeding arises from a home invasion robbery in Woodbury on November 19, 2010. The defendant, along with five other men, drove to the home in two separate vehicles. Once there, four of the men, Randolph Chase, Jose Fuertes, Glen Campbell, and Michael Mohammed, approached the home under the pretense of delivering flowers to one of the occupants. When the door to the home opened, the four men, two of whom were armed with guns, pushed their way inside, tied up the occupants of the home with duct tape, and proceeded to gather valuables. The police arrived a short time later, and the four men fled the home into the backyard and beyond before they were ultimately apprehended.
While the robbery was taking place, the defendant and another man, Goutam Persaud, remained in the defendant's vehicle a short distance from the home. Neither was apprehended immediately, but both men were ultimately lured by one of the other participants in the robbery to a darkened parking lot where they were arrested.
The defendant made two written statements to the police, after being advised of and waiving his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694), wherein he acknowledged that he had driven Persaud and two other people, whom he represented he did not know, in his vehicle to the home in Woodbury and had waited for them to return.
The Supreme Court granted the People's application pursuant to People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 to admit evidence of a statement made by the defendant to a New York City Police Department (hereinafter NYPD) detective wherein the defendant admitted that, 11 days prior to the Woodbury home invasion robbery, he and Persaud had picked up and dropped off Glen Campbell and one other person at a home in Queens, driven down the block, and waited for the men, while Campbell and the other man burglarized the home. The defendant admitted to receiving $1,000 as his “cut” of the proceeds of the Queens burglary. The Queens burglary occurred at the home of another member of the family that lived in the home in Woodbury. The defendant, Persaud, and Campbell had participated in both the Queens burglary and the Woodbury home invasion robbery. The Supreme Court held that the defendant's statement to the NYPD detective was admissible to prove the defendant's criminal intent and knowledge with respect to the Woodbury robbery.
Evidence of prior uncharged crimes is inadmissible to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yusuf v. Colvin
...Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (“Appellate Division”) affirmed Petitioner's convictions. People v. Yusuf, 961 N.Y.S.2d 316, 317 (App.Div. 2013). On May 8, 2013, counsel on behalf of Petitioner requested leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (“Court of Ap......
-
People v. Palencia
...1014, 931 N.Y.S.2d 393 ), or involving the same or similar conduct for which he or she is being tried (see e.g. People v. Yusuf, 104 A.D.3d 881, 883, 961 N.Y.S.2d 316 ). In these cases, the courts have held that limiting instructions were sufficient to ameliorate any potential prejudice (se......
-
People v. Rembert
...to the jury served to alleviate any potential prejudice resulting from the admission of the evidence (see People v. Yusuf, 104 A.D.3d 881, 883, 961 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; People v. Alke, 90 A.D.3d at 944, 935 N.Y.S.2d 96 ). Contrary to the defendant's contentions in his main brief and his pro se su......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...98 N.Y.2d 660, 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014 ; People v. Sheehan, 105 A.D.3d 873, 875, 963 N.Y.S.2d 309 ; People v. Yusuf, 104 A.D.3d 881, 883, 961 N.Y.S.2d 316 ; People v. James, 19 A.D.3d 616, 616, 797 N.Y.S.2d 129 ).MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, COHEN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., ...