People v. Giannetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Giannetti

111 A.D.2d 931, 490 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50202

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1985·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered May 9, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

[932] Judgment affirmed and this case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant’s written statement, coupled with Detective Lissenden’s testimony regarding defendant’s statements made at the police precinct, suffice to show that defendant entered the house in question with the intent to take food from the refrigerator. The fact that defendant offered another explanation for his actions does not require a different finding. The trial court, sitting as the trier of facts, was entitled to accept the testimony which it found credible, and could, in its role as fact finder, disregard defendant’s explanation (People v Bigelow, 106 AD2d 448).

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered May 9, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

[932] Judgment affirmed and this case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant’s written statement, coupled with Detective Lissenden’s testimony regarding defendant’s statements made at the police precinct, suffice to show that defendant entered the house in question with the intent to take food from the refrigerator. The fact that defendant offered another explanation for his actions does not require a different finding. The trial court, sitting as the trier of facts, was entitled to accept the testimony which it found credible, and could, in its role as fact finder, disregard defendant’s explanation (People v Bigelow, 106 AD2d 448).

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

People v. Giannetti, 111 A.D.2d 931, 490 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

111 A.D.2d 931 (People v. Giannetti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related