- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- People v. Greene
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03397
Background
Defendant Dakeem Greene was convicted after a jury trial in Supreme Court, New York County, of two counts of robbery in the second degree and one count of assault in the second degree. The charges arose from an incident captured on surveillance video in which Greene assaulted a victim and three female accomplices then took the victim’s wallet. After rifling through the wallet, one of the accomplices discarded it. Greene was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to concurrent terms of seven years on each robbery count and five years on the assault count. On appeal, Greene challenged the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting both the robbery and assault convictions, and raised evidentiary issues regarding the admission of arrest photographs and body-worn camera footage.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the evidence supporting both counts of second-degree robbery was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The surveillance footage captured the entire incident and left no doubt that Greene shared intent and community of purpose with the three women who took the victim’s wallet after Greene assaulted him. The Court rejected the defense argument that the accomplices’ discarding of the wallet demonstrated only an intent to temporarily deprive the victim of it, finding instead that the rifling through the wallet followed by its abandonment was consistent with larcenous intent. On the assault count, the Court found the evidence legally sufficient to establish that Greene stomped on the victim’s head with his shod foot, as demonstrated by the surveillance footage together with evidence of the victim’s head injuries. The Court also upheld the trial court’s evidentiary rulings regarding the arrest photographs and body-worn camera footage.
Takeaways
Accomplice liability for robbery requires proof that the defendant shared intent and community of purpose with the individuals who actually took the property. Surveillance video evidence can be dispositive in establishing this shared intent. The fact that stolen property is ultimately discarded after being examined does not negate larcenous intent; the temporary possession and examination of the victim’s property is sufficient to establish a completed taking. For assault in the second degree, evidence that the defendant stomped on a victim’s head with a shod foot satisfies the dangerous instrument element, and surveillance footage corroborated by injury evidence can establish the nature of the blow.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates how surveillance video evidence can be decisive in resolving questions of intent and conduct in robbery and assault prosecutions. Defense counsel challenging robbery convictions should be cautious about arguing temporary deprivation when the evidence shows that accomplices took possession of the victim’s property and examined its contents, as courts view this conduct as fully consistent with larcenous intent regardless of whether the property was ultimately abandoned. The decision also reaffirms that stomping on a victim’s head with a shod foot constitutes the use of a dangerous instrument for purposes of second-degree assault, consistent with longstanding precedent treating shod feet as capable of causing serious physical injury when used to strike vulnerable areas of the body.