Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025

People v. Cedeno

People v. Cedeno
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 12, 2025
2025 NY Slip Op 03635
People v. Cedeno

Opinion

People v Cedeno (2025 NY Slip Op 03635)

People v Cedeno
2025 NY Slip Op 03635
Decided on June 12, 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: June 12, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Ind No. 1132/19|Appeal No. 4583|Case No. 2022-2018|

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

v

Jonathan Cedeno, Defendant-Appellant.




Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Sarah E. Siegel of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered May 05, 2022,

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: June 12, 2025

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



Opinion

People v Cedeno (2025 NY Slip Op 03635)
People v Cedeno
2025 NY Slip Op 03635
Decided on June 12, 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: June 12, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Ind No. 1132/19|Appeal No. 4583|Case No. 2022-2018|

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

v

Jonathan Cedeno, Defendant-Appellant.




Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Sarah E. Siegel of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered May 05, 2022,

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: June 12, 2025

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



Opinion

People v Cedeno (2025 NY Slip Op 03635)
People v Cedeno
2025 NY Slip Op 03635
Decided on June 12, 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: June 12, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Ind No. 1132/19|Appeal No. 4583|Case No. 2022-2018|

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

v

Jonathan Cedeno, Defendant-Appellant.




Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Sarah E. Siegel of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Brian Witthuhn of counsel), for respondent.



An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laurence E. Busching, J.), rendered May 05, 2022,

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: June 12, 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.