You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT...
, ,

THE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the evidence identifying defendant as one of the robbers was legally sufficient but the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he police officer who spoke with the complainant outside the deli testified that the only description given of the perpetrators was four male Hispanics, one with a bleach-blond beard, and that the complainant never mentioned that one of the perpetrators was wearing a bandana. After speaking with the complainant, the officer, accompanied by the complainant, crossed the street and entered the park where the robbery had occurred. The defendant, who was wearing a black shirt and sitting on a bench approximately 100 feet from where the crime took place, was the only person in the park. The officer walked up to the defendant, who did not flee or offer any resistance, told him to stand, and placed him in handcuffs. Upon searching the defendant, the officer found a bandana depicting the Mexican flag in his pocket. According to the arresting officer, upon seeing the bandana, the complainant told the officer for the first time that one of the perpetrators had been wearing a similar bandana. The complainant’s wallet and its contents were never recovered. * * *

In this single-witness identification case, an acquittal would not have been unreasonable. While the defendant was found in possession of a distinctive-looking bandana in close spatial and temporal proximity to the scene of the robbery, none of the police witnesses testified that the complainant had mentioned the existence of such a bandana prior to the defendant’s arrest. Moreover, the record evidence does not explain why the police would have expected to find one of the suspects in the park, when the complainant himself testified that the four suspects left together after the robbery. We also find it significant that the complainant testified that he had seen the man with the bandana on two occasions prior to the night of the robbery, yet he also testified that he had never seen the defendant before the night of the robbery, and in fact identified one of the codefendants in court as the man with the bandana. People v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 03196, Second Dept 5-19-21

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING WITH THE JUDGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS NONACTIONABLE AS “TRIVIAL” IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE JURY; IN OTHER WORDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Fraudulent Conveyance
UPON CONVICTION OF ROBBERY SECOND, ROBBERY THIRD, AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, MUST BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN MOVING TO VACATE A MORE THAN $2 MILLION DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS MED MAL CASE, DEFENDANT DOCTOR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SHE WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS; A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEPORTATION OF DEFENDANT DID NOT RENDER APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT ACADEMIC; UPWARD DEPARTURE BASED UPON THE EXTREME VIOLENCE OF THE CRIME PROPER.
HERE FAMILY COURT HAD THE INHERENT POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS THE CHILD’S FATHER; RESPONDENT WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING PATERNITY BASED ON HIS POSITION IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL... DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE...