People v. Lyte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lyte

40 A.D.3d 319, 836 N.Y.S.2d 93

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

DecidedMay 10, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 319 (People v. Lyte) 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. Lyte, 40 A.D.3d 319, 836 N.Y.S.2d 93 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered December 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 1 to 3 years with restitution in the amount of $61,400, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of the reliability of the aged victim’s testimony (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant, a home health care aide, took large sums of money from her client with larcenous intent, and not as a loan to be repaid. The fact that the jury acquitted defendant of certain charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered December 3, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 1 to 3 years with restitution in the amount of $61,400, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of the reliability of the aged victim’s testimony (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant, a home health care aide, took large sums of money from her client with larcenous intent, and not as a loan to be repaid. The fact that the jury acquitted defendant of certain charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 319, 836 N.Y.S.2d 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lyte-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack