Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 27, 2000

273 A.D.2d 153; 710 N.Y.S.2d 333; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Matthews (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
SIMMONS, ALVIN E., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Sharma (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Sharma (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Soares (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Mitchell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Heller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. McLeod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Boisseau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J.), rendered February 24, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him to four concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence warranted a reasonable inference that the unapprehended participant in the crime had taken his knife halfway out of his pocket as a means of displaying it for the purpose of intimidating the victims. Therefore, the evidence established the element of threatened use of a dangerous instrument (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) for purposes of robbery in the first degree (see, People v Di Girolamo, 108 AD2d 755, lv denied 64 NY2d 1133). We have considered and rejected *154defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.