People v. Jace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jace

76 A.D.2d 683, 905 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedAugust 24, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 683 (People v. Jace) 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. Jace, 76 A.D.2d 683, 905 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 27, 2006, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree (three counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that the evidence was legally insuf[684]*684ficient to prove her guilt of grand larceny in the third degree because the complainants were not the “owner[s]” of the money (Penal Law § 155.05 [1]) that she was accused of stealing is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, 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, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 27, 2006, convicting her of grand larceny in the third degree (three counts) and scheme to defraud in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that the evidence was legally insuf[684]*684ficient to prove her guilt of grand larceny in the third degree because the complainants were not the “owner[s]” of the money (Penal Law § 155.05 [1]) that she was accused of stealing is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 683, 905 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jace-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack