People v. Ragosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ragosa

161 A.D.2d 735, 558 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6420

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 21, 1990·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered May 13, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree. While the defendant attempted to explain his knowing, recent, and exclusive possession of certain items which had been stolen from the complainant’s house, the jury could properly reject [736]*736such evidence (see, People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 383; People v Miller, 114 AD2d 863).

The defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered May 13, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree. While the defendant attempted to explain his knowing, recent, and exclusive possession of certain items which had been stolen from the complainant’s house, the jury could properly reject [736]*736such evidence (see, People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 383; People v Miller, 114 AD2d 863).

The defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

People v. Ragosa, 161 A.D.2d 735, 558 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

161 A.D.2d 735 (People v. Ragosa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related