People v. Espada, 94 A.D.3d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Espada, 94 A.D.3d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant . . . made an implied threat to use the knife against the victim at p. 452 ≈ altered
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Carter (nyappdiv, 2022-01-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Further, the jury, which saw a photograph of the bottle opener, could have reasonably found that it was readily capable of causing serious physical injury ( see People v Espada , 94 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carter
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Further, the jury, which saw a photograph of the bottle opener, could have reasonably found that it was readily capable of causing serious physical injury ( see People v Espada , 94 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gann v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The showing of probable cause to arrest is a complete defense to an unlawful arrest and imprisonment claim ( see Veloz v City of New York , 161 AD3d 668 , 668 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Penal Law § 120.14[1]; People v Espada , 94 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gann v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The showing of probable cause to arrest is a complete defense to an unlawful arrest and imprisonment claim ( see Veloz v City of New York , 161 AD3d 668 , 668 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Penal Law § 120.14[1]; People v Espada , 94 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. LaCross
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Further, the jury could have reasonably concluded that, by doing so, defendant was making an implied threat to use the knife against the victim ( see id. at 1380; People v Espada , 94 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]; People v Mitchell , 59 AD3d 739, 739-740 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 918 [2009]). "[A]ny inconsistency between the victim's trial testimony and the victim's testimony from prior proceedings was not so great as to render his trial testimony incredible as a matter of law" ( Simmons , 128 AD3d at 1380).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Simmons
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as “[t]he jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant . . . made an implied threat to use the [knife] against the [victim]” (People v Espada, 94 AD3d 451, 452 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]; see Mitchell, 59 AD3d at 739-740 ; People v Boisseau, 33 AD3d 568 , 568 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Simmons
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as “[t]he jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant . . . made an implied threat to use the [knife] against the [victim]” (People v Espada, 94 AD3d 451, 452 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]; see Mitchell, 59 AD3d at 739-740 ; People v Boisseau, 33 AD3d 568 , 568 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Edwin Espada
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 5, 2012.
94 A.D.3d 451
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered May 12, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9[*452] NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant asserts that the evidence failed to establish the element of use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Initially, we find no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations.

A store employee tried to stop defendant from departing with stolen merchandise. Defendant warned the employee not to touch him, pulled out a pair of pliers that he held at his side, and repeated the warning. The jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant thus made an implied threat to use the pliers against the employee (see e.g. People v Boisseau, 33 AD3d 568 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 844 [2007]).

Defendant also claims the pliers were not sharp enough to be readily capable of causing serious physical injury under the circumstances of their threatened use (see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]). However, two witnesses described the pliers as “sharp,” and the pliers were received in evidence and shown to the jury.

Defendant’s pro se claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.