People v. Friend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Friend

296 A.D.2d 556, 745 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7576

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 556 (People v. Friend) 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. Friend, 296 A.D.2d 556, 745 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Cotter, J.), rendered November 1, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of the stolen items exceeded the $1,000 threshold needed to sustain a conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree (see People v Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142; People v Hill, 220 AD2d 927).

Furthermore, the defendant’s claim that the jury charge was confusing and erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rodriguez, 187 AD2d 465). Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, 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 (Cotter, J.), rendered November 1, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the market value of the stolen items exceeded the $1,000 threshold needed to sustain a conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree (see People v Irrizari, 5 NY2d 142; People v Hill, 220 AD2d 927).

Furthermore, the defendant’s claim that the jury charge was confusing and erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rodriguez, 187 AD2d 465). Smith, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 556, 745 N.Y.S.2d 698, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-friend-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack