People v. Byrd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Byrd

137 A.D.2d 607, 524 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1008

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 607 (People v. Byrd) 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. Byrd, 137 A.D.2d 607, 524 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered December 18, 1986, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although no one actually observed the defendant steal the complainant’s money from his pocket, the evidence that the defendant was in recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of the complainant’s money was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of the crimes charged (see, e.g., People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 383). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, 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 (Finnegan, J.), rendered December 18, 1986, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although no one actually observed the defendant steal the complainant’s money from his pocket, the evidence that the defendant was in recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of the complainant’s money was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of the crimes charged (see, e.g., People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 383). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 607, 524 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-byrd-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack