People v. Andre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andre

167 A.D.2d 343, 562 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13365

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 5, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered May 18, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[344] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A person may commit a larceny when he steals property "with intent to deprive another of [the] property” (Penal Law § 155.05 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we conclude, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intended permanently to deprive another of his property (see, People v Welsh, 124 AD2d 301, 303; see also, People v Kirnon, 39 AD2d 666, affd 31 NY2d 877; People v Reed, 124 AD2d 836). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, 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, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered May 18, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[344] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A person may commit a larceny when he steals property "with intent to deprive another of [the] property” (Penal Law § 155.05 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we conclude, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intended permanently to deprive another of his property (see, People v Welsh, 124 AD2d 301, 303; see also, People v Kirnon, 39 AD2d 666, affd 31 NY2d 877; People v Reed, 124 AD2d 836). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.

People v. Andre, 167 A.D.2d 343, 562 N.Y.S.2d 435, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

167 A.D.2d 343 (People v. Andre) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related