Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

People v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided August 26, 2002

297 A.D.2d 389; 746 N.Y.2d 615; 746 N.Y.S.2d 615; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8138

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

HAMILTON, ADAM J., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Terrell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
People v. Hickman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Love (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Parton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
People v. Hernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Aliseo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People v. Libardi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Hornedo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Hernandez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Caimite (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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

The defendant failed to specifically object with regard to the *390legal sufficiency of the evidence on the ground he raises on appeal. Therefore, his arguments regarding this issue are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Seabrooks, 289 AD2d 515, Iv denied 98 NY2d 640). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thé defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

Since the defendant withdrew his request that the court charge sexual abuse in the third degree as a lesser-included offense, his contention regarding this issue is waived and unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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