People v. Flick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flick

147 A.D.2d 957, 537 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1424

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 957 (People v. Flick) 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. Flick, 147 A.D.2d 957, 537 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the circumstantial evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10). Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People and granting it all reasonable inferences (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437), we conclude that a valid line of reasoning exists whereby a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Bleakley, 69 NY 490, 495). Defendant was the only person present in the building at the time of the fire. He acknowledged that earlier that morning he had been in the basement where gasoline was found. He was seen removing items from the house shortly before the fire and had taken out a renter’s insurance policy the day before the fire. This evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction (see, People v Sundholm, 105 AD2d 1072; People v Feurstein, 74 AD2d 853).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and [958]*958find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — arson, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the circumstantial evidence was not legally sufficient to support his conviction of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10). Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the People and granting it all reasonable inferences (see, People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437), we conclude that a valid line of reasoning exists whereby a rational trier of fact could have found defendant guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Bleakley, 69 NY 490, 495). Defendant was the only person present in the building at the time of the fire. He acknowledged that earlier that morning he had been in the basement where gasoline was found. He was seen removing items from the house shortly before the fire and had taken out a renter’s insurance policy the day before the fire. This evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction (see, People v Sundholm, 105 AD2d 1072; People v Feurstein, 74 AD2d 853).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and [958]*958find it to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — arson, third degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 957, 537 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flick-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack