People v. Andjelovic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andjelovic

198 A.D.2d 287, 603 N.Y.S.2d 567

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 287 (People v. Andjelovic) 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. Andjelovic, 198 A.D.2d 287, 603 N.Y.S.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered December 15, 1992, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the defendant and his business partner purchased and received only one design computer for their Brooklyn knitwear factory, that the partner took the computer when the partnership dissolved, that the defendant knew the computer was not in his factory when it was thereafter destroyed by fire and that he, nonetheless, listed the computer in the claim he submitted to his fire insurance carrier. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the defendant possessed the intent to steal while in Kings County so as to place venue in that county (see, CPL 20.40 [1] [a]; People v Moore, 46 NY2d 1; People v Tullo, 34 NY2d 712; People v Chaitin, 94 AD2d 705, affd. 61 NY2d 683).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered December 15, 1992, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the defendant and his business partner purchased and received only one design computer for their Brooklyn knitwear factory, that the partner took the computer when the partnership dissolved, that the defendant knew the computer was not in his factory when it was thereafter destroyed by fire and that he, nonetheless, listed the computer in the claim he submitted to his fire insurance carrier. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the defendant possessed the intent to steal while in Kings County so as to place venue in that county (see, CPL 20.40 [1] [a]; People v Moore, 46 NY2d 1; People v Tullo, 34 NY2d 712; People v Chaitin, 94 AD2d 705, affd. 61 NY2d 683).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 287, 603 N.Y.S.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andjelovic-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack