People v. Fucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fucci

57 A.D.2d 559, 393 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11517

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

DecidedApril 4, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 559 (People v. Fucci) 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. Fucci, 57 A.D.2d 559, 393 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 18, 1975, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed. The prosecution failed to establish any specific larcenous intent on the part of the defendant and thus failed to make out a prima facie case for the jury (see Penal Law, §§ 155.05, 155.35). It does not appear from the record that the defendant "deprived” the owner of his money, nor "appropriated” the same, as those terms are defined by subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 155.00 of the Penal Law. In addition, there is a grave question as to whether this prosecution [560]*560subjected defendant to double jeopardy. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 18, 1975, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed. The prosecution failed to establish any specific larcenous intent on the part of the defendant and thus failed to make out a prima facie case for the jury (see Penal Law, §§ 155.05, 155.35). It does not appear from the record that the defendant "deprived” the owner of his money, nor "appropriated” the same, as those terms are defined by subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 155.00 of the Penal Law. In addition, there is a grave question as to whether this prosecution [560]*560subjected defendant to double jeopardy. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 559, 393 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fucci-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack