People v. Piazza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piazza

40 A.D.2d 1038, 339 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2961

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1038 (People v. Piazza) 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. Piazza, 40 A.D.2d 1038, 339 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of' the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered March 24, 1972, convicting him of grand larceny in -the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and indictment dismissed. With [1039]*1039respect to any of the theories of larceny presented by the proof and submitted to the jury, we believe the People failed to prove that defendant’s acts had been done with criminal intent. And if we were not reversing and dismissing the indictment on this ground, we would reverse and direct a new trial because of prejudicial errors and improper comments in the trial court’s charge to the jury and because the People’s proof and the court’s charge effected an impermissible de facto amendment of the indictment and created, de facto, an impermissible duplicitous count in violation of CPL 200.30, 200.70. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of' the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered March 24, 1972, convicting him of grand larceny in -the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and indictment dismissed. With [1039]*1039respect to any of the theories of larceny presented by the proof and submitted to the jury, we believe the People failed to prove that defendant’s acts had been done with criminal intent. And if we were not reversing and dismissing the indictment on this ground, we would reverse and direct a new trial because of prejudicial errors and improper comments in the trial court’s charge to the jury and because the People’s proof and the court’s charge effected an impermissible de facto amendment of the indictment and created, de facto, an impermissible duplicitous count in violation of CPL 200.30, 200.70. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1038, 339 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piazza-nyappdiv-1972.