# People v. Contreras

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · February 7, 1985 · 108 A.D.2d 627

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5875162

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Anthony Contreras
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** February 7, 1985
- **Citations:** 108 A.D.2d 627; 485 N.Y.S.2d 261; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42978
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kupferman
- **Judges:** Kupferman
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5875162

## Opinion text

Kupferman, J. P.,
dissents in a memorandum as follows: The defendant not having taken the stand, the Sandoval ruling cannot be called in question. (See, Luce v United States, 469 US _ , 105 S Ct 460 .)
As to the evidence, it was made clear, as the complainant testified, that the defendant had two front teeth missing. While the popular song is to the effect “All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth”, and it is now into the new year, this vacuum can make a lasting impression. Witness the memory of the missing front teeth of the heavyweight boxer, Leon Spinks.
*630 It cannot be said that the complainant did not suffer “substantial pain.” (Penal Law § 10.00 [9].)
I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5875162. Public record. Not legal advice.