People v. Di Lorenzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Di Lorenzo

276 A.D.2d 915

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 915 (People v. Di Lorenzo) 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. Di Lorenzo, 276 A.D.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Holán, P. J., concurs for affirmance of the judgment convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, but dissents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as it convicts defendant of the crime of forgery in the second degree, being of opinion that the evidence is insufficient to establish the commission of the latter crime, or that it was partly committed, in Queens County; and being of the opinion, further, that the trial court erred in charging that the defendant might be found guilty of forgery if the jury found that, with intent to defraud, he had in his possession a forged instrument involving the certificate men[916]*916tioned in the third count of the indictment, and in refusing to amplify that charge, as requested by defendant’s attorney at folios 653-654.

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

Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Holán, P. J., concurs for affirmance of the judgment convicting defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, but dissents and votes to reverse the judgment insofar as it convicts defendant of the crime of forgery in the second degree, being of opinion that the evidence is insufficient to establish the commission of the latter crime, or that it was partly committed, in Queens County; and being of the opinion, further, that the trial court erred in charging that the defendant might be found guilty of forgery if the jury found that, with intent to defraud, he had in his possession a forged instrument involving the certificate men[916]*916tioned in the third count of the indictment, and in refusing to amplify that charge, as requested by defendant’s attorney at folios 653-654.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-di-lorenzo-nyappdiv-1950.