People v. Lachmanaya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lachmanaya

236 A.D.2d 558, 654 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1345

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 558 (People v. Lachmanaya) 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. Lachmanaya, 236 A.D.2d 558, 654 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 9, 1995, as granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the first count of the indictment charging him with burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the first count of the indictment is denied, the first count of the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted for further proceedings on the indictment.

[559]*559Viewing the evidence presented to the Grand Jury in a light most favorable to the People, it would be sufficient, if unexplained and uncontradicted, to warrant conviction of the defendant, on an acting in concert theory, of the crime of burglary in the second degree (see, People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103; People v Deegan, 69 NY2d 976; People v Woodson, 176 AD2d 186; People v Torres, 162 AD2d 385; People v Reed, 121 AD2d 574; Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; CPL 70.10 [1]). Accordingly, that count of the indictment must be reinstated. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated November 9, 1995, as granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the first count of the indictment charging him with burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the first count of the indictment is denied, the first count of the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted for further proceedings on the indictment.

[559]*559Viewing the evidence presented to the Grand Jury in a light most favorable to the People, it would be sufficient, if unexplained and uncontradicted, to warrant conviction of the defendant, on an acting in concert theory, of the crime of burglary in the second degree (see, People v Jennings, 69 NY2d 103; People v Deegan, 69 NY2d 976; People v Woodson, 176 AD2d 186; People v Torres, 162 AD2d 385; People v Reed, 121 AD2d 574; Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; CPL 70.10 [1]). Accordingly, that count of the indictment must be reinstated. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 558, 654 N.Y.S.2d 640, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lachmanaya-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack