People v. Jones, 246 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Jones, 246 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Magid v. Sunrise Holdings Group, LLC (nyappdiv, 2017-11-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Magid v. Sunrise Holdings Group, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the unclean hands doctrine did not preclude the granting of preliminary injunctive relief in this case, as the application of that equitable doctrine presents a question of fact that cannot be resolved at this early stage of the action (see ERS Enters. v Empire Holdings, 286 AD2d 206, 207 [2001]; Chai & Tantrakoon v Royal Realty Corp., 246 AD2d 398, 399 [1998]; Lew-Mark Cleaners Corp. v DeMartini, 128 AD2d 758, 759 [1987]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jomo Jones
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 15, 1998.
246 A.D.2d 398
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered April 16, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There was ample evidence of defendant’s forcible retention of the property immediately after the taking. The challenged evidentiary rulings were proper exercises of discretion. In any event, there was no significant possibility that, had the challenged evidence been excluded, the verdict would have been different (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We find no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.