People v Vandenko

Annotate this Case
People v Vandenko 2010 NY Slip Op 00888 [70 AD3d 733] February 2, 2010 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Stanislav Vandenko, Appellant.

—[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Carl D. Lesueur [Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP], of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered July 19, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, aggravated criminal contempt, and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant's request to charge manslaughter in the first degree (see Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) as a lesser-included offense of the charge of murder in the second degree (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). The evidence established that the defendant wrapped a television coaxial cable around the victim's neck three times and tied it tightly in a knot, causing her death. Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant (see People v Daniel, 37 AD3d 731 [2007]; People v Hartman, 4 AD3d 22, 25 [2004]), there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he intended to cause the victim serious physical injury, but did not intend to cause her death (see CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Seabrooks, 27 AD3d 494 [2006]; People v Maldonado, 5 AD3d 505 [2004]; People v Gauze, 3 AD3d 538 [2004]; People v Crawford, 231 AD2d 431, 432 [1996]). Santucci, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.