People v. Hoppe

184 A.D.2d 582
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 582 (People v. Hoppe) 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. Hoppe, 184 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered February 6, 1991, convicting him of criminal mischief in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree to criminal mischief in the third degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for resentencing for criminal mischief in the third degree. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

The defendant contends that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish that the damage to the property exceeded $1,500 (see, Penal Law § 145.10) We agree. No expert testified as to value of the damaged property and no documentary proof as to the cost of repair or replacement was introduced. The complainant’s testimony that the repairs cost $4,500 was insufficient since that testimony was unsupported by documentation or other evidence that that amount represented the reasonable cost of the repairs (see, People v Slattery, 173 AD2d 656; People v Jackson, 168 AD2d 633; People v Gina, 137 AD2d 555). However, we have reviewed the photographs of the damage introduced at trial and find that they demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the damage exceeded $250, the statutory amount required to prove criminal mischief in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 145.05). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Garcia
29 A.D.3d 255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Colon
12 A.D.3d 689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Singleton
291 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Wilson
284 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Betts
232 A.D.2d 258 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Ladd
220 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Michallow
201 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Detwiler
187 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Brantley
186 A.D.2d 1036 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 A.D.2d 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hoppe-nyappdiv-1992.