People v. Lynch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lynch

116 A.D.3d 979, 983 N.Y.S.2d 838

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

DecidedApril 23, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 979 (People v. Lynch) 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. Lynch, 116 A.D.3d 979, 983 N.Y.S.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered October 19, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, identity theft in the first degree, and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that there was no statutory double jeopardy violation (see CPL 40.20; Matter of Kings Point Holdings, LLC v Kings Point Vil. Justice Ct., 83 AD3d 714, 715 [2011]; People v Dean, 56 AD2d 242, 245-246 [1977], affd 45 NY2d 651 [1978]). The crimes for which the defendant was prosecuted in Suffolk County were not based upon the same criminal transaction as the crime for which he was prosecuted in Westchester County [980]*980(see CPL 40.10 [2]; People v Dallas, 46 AD3d 489, 490 [2007]). The Westchester County prosecution involved a separate offense, which arose out of the defendant’s possession of a different forged instrument than the one at issue in the Suffolk County prosecution.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, 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, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered October 19, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, identity theft in the first degree, and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly concluded that there was no statutory double jeopardy violation (see CPL 40.20; Matter of Kings Point Holdings, LLC v Kings Point Vil. Justice Ct., 83 AD3d 714, 715 [2011]; People v Dean, 56 AD2d 242, 245-246 [1977], affd 45 NY2d 651 [1978]). The crimes for which the defendant was prosecuted in Suffolk County were not based upon the same criminal transaction as the crime for which he was prosecuted in Westchester County [980]*980(see CPL 40.10 [2]; People v Dallas, 46 AD3d 489, 490 [2007]). The Westchester County prosecution involved a separate offense, which arose out of the defendant’s possession of a different forged instrument than the one at issue in the Suffolk County prosecution.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 979, 983 N.Y.S.2d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lynch-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack