People v. Bland

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Bland

340 N.E.2d 475, 37 N.Y.2d 858, 378 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2238

DecidedOctober 21, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 340 N.E.2d 475 (People v. Bland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bland, 340 N.E.2d 475, 37 N.Y.2d 858, 378 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2238 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed.

The record supports the conviction all but conclusively. Only a bizarre attenuation of reasoning, however ingenious, would attribute credibility to defendant’s explanation of innocence in receiving, receipting, and expending double social welfare payments. Compounding the transparency of the proffered explanation is the contradictory evidence of defendant’s formal education, efforts at further education, and sophistication with regard to social service payments. Certainly, therefore, there is no legal insufficiency in the conviction, to which this court’s power of review is limited. Notably, no trial errors [859]*859of law in rulings or charge to the jury are assigned by defendant.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. Order of the Appellate Term affirmed.

The record supports the conviction all but conclusively. Only a bizarre attenuation of reasoning, however ingenious, would attribute credibility to defendant’s explanation of innocence in receiving, receipting, and expending double social welfare payments. Compounding the transparency of the proffered explanation is the contradictory evidence of defendant’s formal education, efforts at further education, and sophistication with regard to social service payments. Certainly, therefore, there is no legal insufficiency in the conviction, to which this court’s power of review is limited. Notably, no trial errors [859]*859of law in rulings or charge to the jury are assigned by defendant.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.E.2d 475, 37 N.Y.2d 858, 378 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bland-ny-1975.