People v. Brooks, 270 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Brooks, 270 A.D.2d 206 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re Alleged Improper Practice Under Section Xi
N.J. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pagano v. Port Authority, 270 A.D. 2d 206 , 705 N.Y.S. 2d 230 (2000) (applying standard that Panel determination "may not be disturbed since substantial evidence supports [it]"); Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y. 2d 222 , 356 N.Y.S. 2d 833, 839 , 313 N.E. 2d 321 (1974) (explaining that administrative tribunal's factual determinations are sustained if supported by substantial evidence, and exercise of discretion by administrative tribunal will be sustained "unless there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion or the action complained of is `arbitrary and capricious.'"). [11] N.J.S.A…
discussed Cited "see" IP 97-28 v. Port Authority Employment Relations Panel
N.J. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Pagano v. Port Authority, 270 A.D.2d 206 , 705 N.Y.S.2d 230 (2000) (applying standard that Panel determination "may not be disturbed since substantial evidence supports [it]"); Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222 , 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 839 , 313 N.E.2d 321, 325 (1974) (explaining that administrative tribunal’s factual determinations are sustained if supported by substantial evidence, and exercise of discretion by administrative tribunal will be sustained “unless there is no rational basis for the exercise of discretion or the action complained of is 'arbitrary and capricious.’ ’�…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Darryl Brooks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 30, 2000.
270 A.D.2d 206
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered June 4, 1998, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 11 to 22 years, 2Vs to 7 years, IV3 to 4 years, 1 year and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant’s arguments, the totality of the evidence, which included defendant’s declaration of his intention to kill his estranged wife as he stabbed her in the presence of their three-year-old son, clearly established defendant’s guilt of attempted murder and endangering the welfare of a child. We see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.