Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Yalidsa ORTIZ and Carmen Vega, Defendants-Respondents.
We agree with the People that County Court erred in granting the motion of defendants insofar as it sought in the alternative to reduce the indictments charging them with assault in the third degree as a hate crime (Penal Law § 120.00[1]; § 485.05[1][a] ) to assault in the third degree based on its determination that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish the hate crime element of that charge. The grand jury evidence established that defendants were strangers to the victims; the crime was unprovoked by the victims; defendants began to beat the victims after inquiring about the victims' relationship; both during and after the incident, defendants repeatedly made derogatory comments concerning the sexual orientation of the victims; and they spat on one of the victims as they fled the scene. Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that such evidence, “ ‘if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction of’ ” assault in the third degree as a hate crime (People v. Bello, 92 N.Y.2d 523, 525-526, 683 N.Y.S.2d 168, 705 N.E.2d 1209; see generally People v. Swamp, 84 N.Y.2d 725, 730, 622 N.Y.S.2d 472, 646 N.E.2d 774).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the motion is denied, the indictments are reinstated and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings on the indictments.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 01, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)