People v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Medina

18 A.D.3d 226, 794 N.Y.S.2d 367

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

DecidedMay 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 226 (People v. Medina) 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. Medina, 18 A.D.3d 226, 794 N.Y.S.2d 367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered October 9, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The value of the car in question was properly established by the testimony of an expert appraiser, in combination with testimony concerning the car’s condition that was provided by the owner and by a police officer who observed the car (see People v Jamison, 278 AD2d 100 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 784 [2001]; People v Callendar, 260 AD2d 315 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1015 [1999]).

Defendant’s argument concerning the court’s charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered October 9, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The value of the car in question was properly established by the testimony of an expert appraiser, in combination with testimony concerning the car’s condition that was provided by the owner and by a police officer who observed the car (see People v Jamison, 278 AD2d 100 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 784 [2001]; People v Callendar, 260 AD2d 315 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1015 [1999]).

Defendant’s argument concerning the court’s charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 226, 794 N.Y.S.2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-medina-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack