People v. Lemma

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lemma

201 A.D.2d 669, 607 N.Y.S.2d 983

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 669 (People v. Lemma) 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. Lemma, 201 A.D.2d 669, 607 N.Y.S.2d 983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens [670]*670County (Browne, J.), rendered November 10, 1992, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the testimony of a gas station attendant regarding the defendant’s demand that he turn over all his money, occurring just prior to the defendant’s actual theft of moneys held by the attendant’s co-worker, wás properly admitted because it was both necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime charged (see, People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204; People v Catala, 198 AD2d 293), and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Catala, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 996). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, 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 [670]*670County (Browne, J.), rendered November 10, 1992, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the testimony of a gas station attendant regarding the defendant’s demand that he turn over all his money, occurring just prior to the defendant’s actual theft of moneys held by the attendant’s co-worker, wás properly admitted because it was both necessary to complete the narrative of events leading up to the crime charged (see, People v Cook, 42 NY2d 204; People v Catala, 198 AD2d 293), and was inextricably interwoven with the description of the events depicted (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Catala, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836; People v Williams, 50 NY2d 996). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 669, 607 N.Y.S.2d 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lemma-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack