People v Soares
2011 NY Slip Op 00242 [80 AD3d 631]
January 11, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 9, 2011


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
DavidSoares, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Svetlana M. Kornfeind of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz,and Jaclyn Belson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.),rendered January 26, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree, resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree,after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant held a box cutter to the victim's neckwith one hand while, with his other hand and arm, he beat the victim, rifled through his pockets, andstole his property.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d620, 621 [1983]), this evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of robbery in thefirst degree based on the use or threat of immediate use of a dangerous instrument (see PenalLaw § 160.15 [3]; People vMitchell, 59 AD3d 739, 740 [2009]; People v Prior, 23 AD3d 1076 [2005]; People v Nelson, 10 AD3d 565[2004]; People v Elliot, 298 AD2d 290 [2002]; People v Danzler, 288 AD2d 5[2001]; People v Thompson, 273 AD2d 153 [2000]; People v Anderson, 204 AD2d191, 192 [1994]). The evidence also was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of criminal possession ofa weapon in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 265.01 [2]; Matter of Sean R., 33 AD3d 925,925-926 [2006]). Under the circumstances, the box cutter was properly found to be a dangerousinstrument (see Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; People v Carter, 53 NY2d 113, 116[1981]; People v Williams, 118 AD2d 609, 610 [1986]). Upon the exercise of our factualreview power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.