People v. Alicea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alicea

32 A.D.2d 544, 300 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4249

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 544 (People v. Alicea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Alicea, 32 A.D.2d 544, 300 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 17, 1968, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Christ and Rabin, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order a new trial, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the retail value of the stolen car was more than $500 (cf. People v. Harold, 22 N Y 2d 443, 445). The owner’s rather vague testimony as to the amount his insurance company paid him after the theft is not probative. No other evidence as to .the value of the stolen car appears in the record. The majority, however, sustain this conviction by taking judicial notice of the 1967 National Market Reports, which listed the wholesale values of used automobiles. We think that those reports are not a proper subject of judicial notice. Even if they were, however, they would not be probative as to the value of the specific automobile involved in this case, since these reports reflect only the average value of a given class of automobiles (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 41). A new .trial is required.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 17, 1968, convicting defendant of grand larceny in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Christ and Rabin, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order a new trial, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the retail value of the stolen car was more than $500 (cf. People v. Harold, 22 N Y 2d 443, 445). The owner’s rather vague testimony as to the amount his insurance company paid him after the theft is not probative. No other evidence as to .the value of the stolen car appears in the record. The majority, however, sustain this conviction by taking judicial notice of the 1967 National Market Reports, which listed the wholesale values of used automobiles. We think that those reports are not a proper subject of judicial notice. Even if they were, however, they would not be probative as to the value of the specific automobile involved in this case, since these reports reflect only the average value of a given class of automobiles (Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 41). A new .trial is required.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 544, 300 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alicea-nyappdiv-1969.