Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

People v. Appleby

People v. Appleby
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 14, 2002
295 A.D.2d 960; 743 N.Y.S.2d 347; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6369
People v. Appleby

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered March 16, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, the verdict convicting him of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [1]) is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not err in denying his request shortly after arraignment for substitution of assigned counsel (see People v Benson, 265 AD2d 814, 814-815, lv denied 94 NY2d 860, cert denied 529 US 1076; People v Square, 262 AD2d 154, lv denied 94 NY2d 829; People v Frayer, 215 AD2d 862, 863, Iv denied 86 NY2d 794; People v Benson, 203 AD2d 966, lv denied 83 NY2d 964). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). We further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe and *961that the court properly ordered payment of restitution in the amount of $1,727.22 based upon the victim’s testimony and records received at the restitution hearing (see People v Morales, 256 AD2d 729, lv denied 95 NY2d 868). Defendant’s remaining contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Krom, 91 AD2d 39, 46-47, affd 61 NY2d 187), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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