People v. Hart

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Hart

795 N.E.2d 31, 100 N.Y.2d 550, 763 N.Y.S.2d 806, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 1412

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 795 N.E.2d 31 (People v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hart, 795 N.E.2d 31, 100 N.Y.2d 550, 763 N.Y.S.2d 806, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 1412 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a false material statement about a past or presently existing fact and, thus, defendant could not be convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses (see Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [a]; see generally People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 619 [1995]).

The People do not challenge the Appellate Division’s ability to review the sufficiency of evidence presented at the first trial on appeal from the conviction after the second trial. Therefore, this issue is not before this Court on this appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The Appellate Division properly determined that, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence at the first trial was legally insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant made a false material statement about a past or presently existing fact and, thus, defendant could not be convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses (see Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [a]; see generally People v Norman, 85 NY2d 609, 619 [1995]).

The People do not challenge the Appellate Division’s ability to review the sufficiency of evidence presented at the first trial on appeal from the conviction after the second trial. Therefore, this issue is not before this Court on this appeal.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 N.E.2d 31, 100 N.Y.2d 550, 763 N.Y.S.2d 806, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 1412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hart-ny-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack