People v. Misevis

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Misevis

559 N.E.2d 651, 76 N.Y.2d 777, 559 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1451

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 559 N.E.2d 651 (People v. Misevis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Misevis, 559 N.E.2d 651, 76 N.Y.2d 777, 559 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1451 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s primary argument is that the People failed to prove that he intended to damage the property of another (see, Penal Law §§ 145.00, 145.10). We agree with the Appellate Division that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), the evidence is sufficient. On this record, the jury could properly have concluded that defendant did not have [779]*779"any reasonable ground to believe” that he was acting under a claim of right. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s primary argument is that the People failed to prove that he intended to damage the property of another (see, Penal Law §§ 145.00, 145.10). We agree with the Appellate Division that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), the evidence is sufficient. On this record, the jury could properly have concluded that defendant did not have [779]*779"any reasonable ground to believe” that he was acting under a claim of right. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 N.E.2d 651, 76 N.Y.2d 777, 559 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 1451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-misevis-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack