People v. Baldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baldo

88 A.D.2d 603, 449 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16787

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

DecidedMay 3, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 603 (People v. Baldo) 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. Baldo, 88 A.D.2d 603, 449 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), dated December 4, 1980, which, following the jury’s returning a verdict of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged therein or any lesser included offenses. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, and the verdict of the jury is reinstated. The case is remitted to Criminal Term for sentencing on the conviction. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish grand larceny in the third degree (see CPL 290.10, subd 1; People v Underwood, 43 AD2d 800). The trial court’s dismissal of the indictment (it had reserved decision on the dismissal motion until after the verdict of the jury), was, therefore, improper and we reinstate the verdict. We note that defendant retains her right to appeal from the judgment of conviction. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), dated December 4, 1980, which, following the jury’s returning a verdict of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that the trial evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the offenses charged therein or any lesser included offenses. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, and the verdict of the jury is reinstated. The case is remitted to Criminal Term for sentencing on the conviction. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish grand larceny in the third degree (see CPL 290.10, subd 1; People v Underwood, 43 AD2d 800). The trial court’s dismissal of the indictment (it had reserved decision on the dismissal motion until after the verdict of the jury), was, therefore, improper and we reinstate the verdict. We note that defendant retains her right to appeal from the judgment of conviction. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 603, 449 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baldo-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack