People v. DiMattina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DiMattina

261 A.D.2d 412, 690 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 412 (People v. DiMattina) 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. DiMattina, 261 A.D.2d 412, 690 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered October 2, 1997, convicting him of petit larceny (two counts), prohibited political assessments in violation of Civil Service Law § 107 (3), and official misconduct (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of official misconduct under count nine of the indictment and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction of official misconduct under count nine of the indictment was based on legally insufficient evidence. In order to convict the defendant of official misconduct [413]*413under count nine, which charged that he solicited political contributions from subordinates, the People were required to prove not only that the defendant intended to obtain a benefit or deprive another of a benefit, but, inter alia, that he knew that the alleged act was unauthorized (see, Penal Law § 195.00 [1]). Here, the record contains no evidence of such knowledge. Absent the requisite proof, the conviction must be reversed and that count of the indictment dismissed (see, People v Anderson, 143 AD2d 760).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Joy, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered October 2, 1997, convicting him of petit larceny (two counts), prohibited political assessments in violation of Civil Service Law § 107 (3), and official misconduct (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of official misconduct under count nine of the indictment and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction of official misconduct under count nine of the indictment was based on legally insufficient evidence. In order to convict the defendant of official misconduct [413]*413under count nine, which charged that he solicited political contributions from subordinates, the People were required to prove not only that the defendant intended to obtain a benefit or deprive another of a benefit, but, inter alia, that he knew that the alleged act was unauthorized (see, Penal Law § 195.00 [1]). Here, the record contains no evidence of such knowledge. Absent the requisite proof, the conviction must be reversed and that count of the indictment dismissed (see, People v Anderson, 143 AD2d 760).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 412, 690 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dimattina-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack