People v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Levine

170 A.D.2d 228, 565 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1240

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 228 (People v. Levine) 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. Levine, 170 A.D.2d 228, 565 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered April 12, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive inde[229]*229terminate terms of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

*

At approximately 11:30 p.m. on June 22, 1988, defendant was confronted by Robert Christgau and his wife Carola Dibbell, as he emerged from the vicinity of a storage room in the lobby of their apartment building with a bicycle and air pump belonging to them and a bicycle belonging to another tenant. Following a two-to-three-minute discussion, in which defendant was told to "just leave the bikes” and go, defendant surrendered the property and left the building. The couple filed a complaint with the police that night, providing a description of defendant which included his tattooed arms, and defendant was arrested six days later when Christgau spotted him on the street and called the police.

Upon examination of this record, we conclude that defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the descriptions given by Christgau and Dibbell, who was unable to identify defendant at trial, were for the jury to resolve. (People v Matthews, 159 AD2d 410.) Our examination of the record leads us to further conclude that defendant’s presence in the building, his possession of property stored in its storage room, and the existence of a broken window in the storage room, comprise sufficient evidence to establish an unlawful entry. (See, People v Torres, 162 AD2d 385; People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201.)

Although it was error for the trial court to have expanded the accepted language of the "no adverse inference” charge, we are persuaded that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. (See, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242; People v Ayala, 75 NY2d 422; People v Diggs, 151 AD2d 359, 362.) We likewise find no basis for reversal in the purportedly improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

On appeal, defendant raises no issues with respect to his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered April 12, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive inde[229]*229terminate terms of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

*

At approximately 11:30 p.m. on June 22, 1988, defendant was confronted by Robert Christgau and his wife Carola Dibbell, as he emerged from the vicinity of a storage room in the lobby of their apartment building with a bicycle and air pump belonging to them and a bicycle belonging to another tenant. Following a two-to-three-minute discussion, in which defendant was told to "just leave the bikes” and go, defendant surrendered the property and left the building. The couple filed a complaint with the police that night, providing a description of defendant which included his tattooed arms, and defendant was arrested six days later when Christgau spotted him on the street and called the police.

Upon examination of this record, we conclude that defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the descriptions given by Christgau and Dibbell, who was unable to identify defendant at trial, were for the jury to resolve. (People v Matthews, 159 AD2d 410.) Our examination of the record leads us to further conclude that defendant’s presence in the building, his possession of property stored in its storage room, and the existence of a broken window in the storage room, comprise sufficient evidence to establish an unlawful entry. (See, People v Torres, 162 AD2d 385; People v Rodriguez, 159 AD2d 201.)

Although it was error for the trial court to have expanded the accepted language of the "no adverse inference” charge, we are persuaded that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. (See, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242; People v Ayala, 75 NY2d 422; People v Diggs, 151 AD2d 359, 362.) We likewise find no basis for reversal in the purportedly improper comments made by the prosecutor on summation. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

On appeal, defendant raises no issues with respect to his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 228, 565 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-levine-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack