People v. Igbinosun

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Igbinosun

35 A.D.3d 1229, 826 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 1229 (People v. Igbinosun) 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. Igbinosun, 35 A.D.3d 1229, 826 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered March 31, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting certain exhibits in evidence because their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. We reject defendant’s contention. The exhibits were relevant in establishing defendant’s involvement in a common plan or scheme (see People v Carelock, 278 AD2d 851 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 757 [2001]), and they also were probative on the issue of defendant’s identity (see People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 943 [1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Mark H. Dadd, J.), rendered March 31, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting certain exhibits in evidence because their probative value was outweighed by their prejudicial effect. We reject defendant’s contention. The exhibits were relevant in establishing defendant’s involvement in a common plan or scheme (see People v Carelock, 278 AD2d 851 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 757 [2001]), and they also were probative on the issue of defendant’s identity (see People v Wilson, 225 AD2d 642 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 943 [1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Martoche and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 1229, 826 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-igbinosun-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack