People v. Cano, 911 N.E.2d 846 (NY 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cano, 911 N.E.2d 846 (NY 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The People v.Raymond Denson (ny, 2015-10-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v.Raymond Denson (2×)
NY · 2015 · confidence medium
People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 155 [2011], cert denied 566 US —, 132 S Ct 1921 [2012]; People v Cano, 12 NY3d 876, 877 [2009], rearg denied 13 NY3d 766 [2009]; Naradzay, 11 NY3d at 467-468 ; Mahboubian, 74 NY2d at 191-192 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Hiedeman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Although defendant engaged in conversations contemplating sexual contact with a 14-year-old and drove to a location where he was told a 14-year-old would be, under the circumstances of this case, his conduct did not pass the stage of mere preparation and bring him dangerously close to committing the attempted crimes of rape in the second degree, a criminal sexual act in the second degree or an act endangering the welfare of a child ( see People v Lendof-Gonzalez , 2020 NY Slip Op 06940 at *3-*4; People v Mike , 92 NY2d 996, 998-999 [1998]; People v Omwathath , 39 Misc 3d 41, 43 [App Term, 2d D…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jesus Cano, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 11, 2009.
911 N.E.2d 846
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Larkin, Axelrod, Ingrassia & Tetenbaum, LLP, Newburgh (Kathleen V. Wells of counsel), for appellant., Francis D. Phillips, II, District Attorney, Middletown (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The defendant came “dangerously near” the commission of crimes when he arrived at the location of what he thought would be a sexual rendevous with an underage boy. The proof of defendant’s intent and extensive preparation followed by his travel to the intended crime scene showed that he was close to achieving his illegal goal and justified his convictions for attempt (P eople v Naradzay, 11 NY3d 460 [2008]).

The appellant’s other contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.