People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jordan

148 A.D.2d 921, 539 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2478

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 921 (People v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 148 A.D.2d 921, 539 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that reversal of his conviction of robbery in the second degree is required because the prosecutor on summation repeatedly referred to him as a liar. This issue was not preserved. Defendant attempted to persuade the jury that he had obtained the victim’s property by false pretenses rather than by force. He acknowledged having practiced con games on at least 200 to 300 people in the past and having lied upon each such occasion; therefore, reversal is not required in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6]).

Defendant also contends that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to charge the jury with respect to the second count in the indictment, grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law former § 155.30 [5]). His reliance on People v Acevedo (40 NY2d 701, 707) for the proposition that grand larceny, third degree, under that subdivision is a lesser included crime of robbery, second degree, is misplaced (see, People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61; People v Harris, 92 AD2d 738).

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and we find that none has merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that reversal of his conviction of robbery in the second degree is required because the prosecutor on summation repeatedly referred to him as a liar. This issue was not preserved. Defendant attempted to persuade the jury that he had obtained the victim’s property by false pretenses rather than by force. He acknowledged having practiced con games on at least 200 to 300 people in the past and having lied upon each such occasion; therefore, reversal is not required in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6]).

Defendant also contends that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to charge the jury with respect to the second count in the indictment, grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law former § 155.30 [5]). His reliance on People v Acevedo (40 NY2d 701, 707) for the proposition that grand larceny, third degree, under that subdivision is a lesser included crime of robbery, second degree, is misplaced (see, People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61; People v Harris, 92 AD2d 738).

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and we find that none has merit. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J. — robbery, second degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 921, 539 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jordan-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack