People v. Cosme

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cosme

228 A.D.2d 515, 644 N.Y.2d 310, 644 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6629

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 515 (People v. Cosme) 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. Cosme, 228 A.D.2d 515, 644 N.Y.2d 310, 644 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

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 complainant was a car dealer whose vehicle was stolen from the dealership lot. He had purchased the car only five days earlier for $3,110, and a bill of sale in that amount was received into evidence. Notwithstanding that the complainant was never qualified as an expert witness, his testimony about the car and the bill of sale sufficed to support a finding that fair market value of the vehicle exceeded the statutory minimum of $3,000 (see, Penal Law § 165.50; People v Jackson, 194 AD2d 691; People v Stein, 172 AD2d 1060; People v Stone, 122 AD2d 387). We further note that insofar as the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury, his claims are not reviewable (see, CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Haqq, 159 AD2d 983).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

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 complainant was a car dealer whose vehicle was stolen from the dealership lot. He had purchased the car only five days earlier for $3,110, and a bill of sale in that amount was received into evidence. Notwithstanding that the complainant was never qualified as an expert witness, his testimony about the car and the bill of sale sufficed to support a finding that fair market value of the vehicle exceeded the statutory minimum of $3,000 (see, Penal Law § 165.50; People v Jackson, 194 AD2d 691; People v Stein, 172 AD2d 1060; People v Stone, 122 AD2d 387). We further note that insofar as the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury, his claims are not reviewable (see, CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Haqq, 159 AD2d 983).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 515, 644 N.Y.2d 310, 644 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cosme-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack