People v. Jaquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jaquez

192 A.D.2d 460, 596 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361

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

DecidedApril 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 460 (People v. Jaquez) 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. Jaquez, 192 A.D.2d 460, 596 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), entered September 10, 1992, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss Indictment No. 5609/92, which charged defendant with criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, with leave to re-present, unanimously reversed, on the law, the indictment reinstated and the motion denied.

The complainant’s written statement, which was read in its entirety to the grand jury and which provided detailed information relevant to the value of the stolen automobile, pro[461]*461vided a sufficient basis from which the jury could "reasonably infer, rather than merely speculate” (People v Lopez, 79 NY2d 402, 405) as to its value. Moreover, while the complainant’s statement was not made under oath, the Court of Appeals has held that a statement that is subscribed beneath a warning such as the one found on the within document, i.e., "False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law,” is "practically as well as theoretically, no different than a statement under oath” (People v Sullivan, 56 NY2d 378, 384). Under these circumstances, we find that the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to sustain the charges, and the indictment should be reinstated. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), entered September 10, 1992, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss Indictment No. 5609/92, which charged defendant with criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, with leave to re-present, unanimously reversed, on the law, the indictment reinstated and the motion denied.

The complainant’s written statement, which was read in its entirety to the grand jury and which provided detailed information relevant to the value of the stolen automobile, pro[461]*461vided a sufficient basis from which the jury could "reasonably infer, rather than merely speculate” (People v Lopez, 79 NY2d 402, 405) as to its value. Moreover, while the complainant’s statement was not made under oath, the Court of Appeals has held that a statement that is subscribed beneath a warning such as the one found on the within document, i.e., "False statements made herein are punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the penal law,” is "practically as well as theoretically, no different than a statement under oath” (People v Sullivan, 56 NY2d 378, 384). Under these circumstances, we find that the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to sustain the charges, and the indictment should be reinstated. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 460, 596 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jaquez-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack