People v. Garvey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garvey

25 A.D.3d 808, 807 N.Y.S.2d 578

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 808 (People v. Garvey) 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. Garvey, 25 A.D.3d 808, 807 N.Y.S.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered July 21, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove the “remains unlawfully” element of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]; § 140.30 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that the defendant unlawfully remained in the victims’ house (see People v Acosta, 273 AD2d 318 [2000]; People v Burnett, 205 AD2d 792 [1994]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Covello, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered July 21, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove the “remains unlawfully” element of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]; § 140.30 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that the defendant unlawfully remained in the victims’ house (see People v Acosta, 273 AD2d 318 [2000]; People v Burnett, 205 AD2d 792 [1994]). Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 808, 807 N.Y.S.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garvey-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack