People v. Williams
Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and a new trial is granted on counts three, four, five, seven and nine of the indictment in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court’s submission of a verdict sheet
We reject the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the evidence of physical injury is insufficient to support his conviction of burglary in the second degree under Penal Law § 140.25 (1) (b) (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636; People v Rogers, 138 AD2d 419, lv denied 71 NY2d 1032). The remaining contentions in the pro se supplemental brief are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.