People v Young

People v Young 2012 NY Slip Op 07864 Decided on November 20, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 20, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
8596 1122/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Richard Young, Defendant-Appellant.




Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Desiree
Sheridan of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Allen J.
Vickey of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J. at dismissal motions; Renee A. White, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 1, 2009, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant's use of force against store employees was for the purpose, at least in part, of retaining control of the stolen merchandise that was still in his
possession (see e.g. People v Nieves, 37 AD3d 277 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 848 [2007]; People v McMahon, 279 AD2d 272 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 803 [2001]).

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). Defendant's criminal record was very extensive, and the court placed reasonable limits on the prosecutor's ability to elicit the scope and contents of that record.

The court properly denied defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment, made on the ground that the prosecutor's questioning of defendant before the grand jury was allegedly improper. The cross-examination at issue was generally appropriate and responsive to defendant's testimony. Any defects fell far short of impairing the integrity of the proceeding; [*2]accordingly, they did not warrant the exceptional remedy of dismissal (see People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 410 [1996]; People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 455 [1990]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 20, 2012

CLERK