From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Legendre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1987
134 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 23, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant committed the acts for which he was convicted (see, Penal Law § 120.05; § 120.25; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600; People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620). With respect to the defendant's conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree, we conclude that the jury could properly have determined that the defendant's conduct evinced "a depraved indifference to human life" (Penal Law § 120.25). The record reveals that on December 8, 1982, at approximately 5:00 P.M. on a Brooklyn street where numerous children were present, the defendant, while drag racing with another car, speeded through a yellow light, struck a young boy who was crossing the street, and thereafter fled the scene of the accident leaving the seriously injured victim lying in the road. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the accuracy of the eyewitness testimony with respect to the defendant's identity as the operator of the automobile was an issue properly left to the jury, whose resolution of the issue we decline to disturb (see, People v. Berkman, 124 A.D.2d 590, 591, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 824).

Furthermore, the defendant failed to register an objection to the trial court's charge in respect to his alibi defense, and, accordingly, did not preserve the issue for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Hydleburg, 127 A.D.2d 792, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 648; People v Lonon, 124 A.D.2d 751, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 830). In any event, we find that the court's alibi charge properly conveyed to the jury the relevant principles of law (see, People v. Hydleburg, supra; People v. Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit (see, People v Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 766, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 649; People v Baeza, 125 A.D.2d 318, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 824; cf., People v Alfaro, 108 A.D.2d 517, affd 66 N.Y.2d 985). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Legendre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1987
134 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Legendre

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GARY LEGENDRE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 525 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Lazartes

After the accident, the defendant left the scene without stopping to see if the decedent had been injured as…

People v. McMillan

Defendant drove down Main Street, which was closed to nonemergency vehicles, sending pedestrians scurrying…