People v. Haygood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haygood

250 A.D.2d 623, 672 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852

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

DecidedMay 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 623 (People v. Haygood) 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. Haygood, 250 A.D.2d 623, 672 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 2, 1995, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (seven counts), and falsifying business records in the first degree (six counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the count of the indictment charging her with grand larceny in the fourth degree was not jurisdictionally defective. That count of the indictment [624]*624cited the applicable section of the Penal Law and tracked the language thereof. It was not required to spell out the People’s theory (see, CPL 200.50 [7] [a]; Penal Law § 155.30; People v Ray, 71 NY2d 849, 850; People v Weston, 223 AD2d 661).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Altman, 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 (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 2, 1995, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (seven counts), and falsifying business records in the first degree (six counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the count of the indictment charging her with grand larceny in the fourth degree was not jurisdictionally defective. That count of the indictment [624]*624cited the applicable section of the Penal Law and tracked the language thereof. It was not required to spell out the People’s theory (see, CPL 200.50 [7] [a]; Penal Law § 155.30; People v Ray, 71 NY2d 849, 850; People v Weston, 223 AD2d 661).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 623, 672 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haygood-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack