People v. Ingles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ingles

105 A.D.3d 504, 962 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedApril 11, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 504 (People v. Ingles) 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. Ingles, 105 A.D.3d 504, 962 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 3, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts) and jostling, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to submit attempted grand larceny as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to defendant (see generally People v James, 11 NY3d 886 [2008]), to support the conclusion that defendant’s conduct failed to satisfy the asportation requirement discussed in Harrison v People (50 NY 518 [1872]). Even when viewed favorably to defendant, the surveillance videotape tends to confirm, rather than contradict, the victim’s testimony that her wallet landed on the floor during the incident.

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Abdus-Salaam, Román and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 3, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts) and jostling, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to submit attempted grand larceny as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to defendant (see generally People v James, 11 NY3d 886 [2008]), to support the conclusion that defendant’s conduct failed to satisfy the asportation requirement discussed in Harrison v People (50 NY 518 [1872]). Even when viewed favorably to defendant, the surveillance videotape tends to confirm, rather than contradict, the victim’s testimony that her wallet landed on the floor during the incident.

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Abdus-Salaam, Román and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 504, 962 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ingles-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack