People v. Ezzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ezzo

213 A.D.2d 556, 624 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 556 (People v. Ezzo) 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. Ezzo, 213 A.D.2d 556, 624 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 25, 1993, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the defendant was not in possession of any items from the burglarized house at the time of his arrest, the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence support the conclusion that he entered the home with the intent to commit a larceny. When more than one inference can be reasonably drawn from the evidence, upon appellate review, the People are entitled to the inference which supports the verdict (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381; People v Rodriguez, 200 AD2d 775; People v Miller, 149 AD2d 737). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Lawrence, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, 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, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 25, 1993, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the defendant was not in possession of any items from the burglarized house at the time of his arrest, the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence support the conclusion that he entered the home with the intent to commit a larceny. When more than one inference can be reasonably drawn from the evidence, upon appellate review, the People are entitled to the inference which supports the verdict (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 381; People v Rodriguez, 200 AD2d 775; People v Miller, 149 AD2d 737). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, does not warrant reversal. Lawrence, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 556, 624 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ezzo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack