People v. Jacot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jacot

210 A.D.2d 979, 621 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13474

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 979 (People v. Jacot) 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. Jacot, 210 A.D.2d 979, 621 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a forged [980]*980instrument in the second degree, forgery in the second degree, and two counts of petit larceny. He contends that his sentence violated Penal Law § 170.35, which provides in pertinent part "that a person may not be convicted of both criminal possession of a forged instrument and forgery with respect to the same instrument.” Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that the conviction arose from the possession of a check drawn on the credit union account of two individuals and endorsed by a third individual, and the forgery of a credit union draft. There is no question that two instruments were involved (cf., People v Ferrara, 160 AD2d 1107, lv denied 76 NY2d 856; People v Shomo, 61 AD2d 1018), and therefore there was no violation of Penal Law § 170.35. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a forged [980]*980instrument in the second degree, forgery in the second degree, and two counts of petit larceny. He contends that his sentence violated Penal Law § 170.35, which provides in pertinent part "that a person may not be convicted of both criminal possession of a forged instrument and forgery with respect to the same instrument.” Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that the conviction arose from the possession of a check drawn on the credit union account of two individuals and endorsed by a third individual, and the forgery of a credit union draft. There is no question that two instruments were involved (cf., People v Ferrara, 160 AD2d 1107, lv denied 76 NY2d 856; People v Shomo, 61 AD2d 1018), and therefore there was no violation of Penal Law § 170.35. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.—Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 979, 621 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jacot-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack