People v. Hazel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hazel

26 A.D.3d 191, 810 N.Y.S.2d 138

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 191 (People v. Hazel) 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. Hazel, 26 A.D.3d 191, 810 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[192]*192Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 7, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Defendant’s argument that he was “merely present” as others stole merchandise is meritless. Instead, defendant’s course of conduct before, during and after the theft established his accessorial liability. The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant intentionally participated in the theft by acting as a lookout, distracting the store’s owners, and interfering with the owners’ efforts to recover the stolen merchandise from the escaping codefendant (see e.g. People v Austin, 290 AD2d 225 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 750 [2002]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

[192]*192Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 7, 2004, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Defendant’s argument that he was “merely present” as others stole merchandise is meritless. Instead, defendant’s course of conduct before, during and after the theft established his accessorial liability. The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant intentionally participated in the theft by acting as a lookout, distracting the store’s owners, and interfering with the owners’ efforts to recover the stolen merchandise from the escaping codefendant (see e.g. People v Austin, 290 AD2d 225 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 750 [2002]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sweeny, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 191, 810 N.Y.S.2d 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hazel-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack