Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025

People v. Curiel

People v. Curiel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 22, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 02297
People v. Curiel

Opinion

People v Curiel (2025 NY Slip Op 02297)
People v Curiel
2025 NY Slip Op 02297
Decided on April 22, 2025
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: April 22, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.

Ind. No. 72158/23|Appeal No. 4157|Case No. 2024-00926|

[*1]The People of The State of New York, Respondent,

v

Victor Curiel, Defendant-Appellant.




Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Emilia King-Musza of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Brendan T. Lantry, J.), rendered January 25, 2024,

Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 22, 2025

Counsel for appellant is referred to

§ 606.5, Rules of the Appellate Division,

First Department.



Opinion

People v Curiel (2025 NY Slip Op 02297)
People v Curiel
2025 NY Slip Op 02297
Decided on April 22, 2025
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: April 22, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.

Ind. No. 72158/23|Appeal No. 4157|Case No. 2024-00926|

[*1]The People of The State of New York, Respondent,

v

Victor Curiel, Defendant-Appellant.




Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Emilia King-Musza of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Brendan T. Lantry, J.), rendered January 25, 2024,

Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 22, 2025

Counsel for appellant is referred to § 606.5, Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department.



Opinion

People v Curiel (2025 NY Slip Op 02297)
People v Curiel
2025 NY Slip Op 02297
Decided on April 22, 2025
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: April 22, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.

Ind. No. 72158/23|Appeal No. 4157|Case No. 2024-00926|

[*1]The People of The State of New York, Respondent,

v

Victor Curiel, Defendant-Appellant.




Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Emilia King-Musza of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Conor E. Byrnes of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Brendan T. Lantry, J.), rendered January 25, 2024,

Said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive,

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

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 22, 2025

Counsel for appellant is referred to § 606.5, Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department.



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