People v. Rescigno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rescigno

247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1010

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 253 (People v. Rescigno) 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. Rescigno, 247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 11, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years to be served under parole supervision pursuant to CPL 410.91, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury had ample basis upon which to infer defendant’s knowledge that the credit card [254]*254he claimed to have found was stolen, “with no need for a specific jury instruction that such an inference could be made based on defendant’s recent and unexplained exclusive possession” of the stolen card (People v Charles, 196 AD2d 750, lv denied 82 NY2d 892). Likewise, the. evidence amply supported an inference that defendant intended to benefit either himself or another, or to impede the owner’s recovery of the card (see, Penal Law § 165.55 [1]). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 11, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years to be served under parole supervision pursuant to CPL 410.91, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury had ample basis upon which to infer defendant’s knowledge that the credit card [254]*254he claimed to have found was stolen, “with no need for a specific jury instruction that such an inference could be made based on defendant’s recent and unexplained exclusive possession” of the stolen card (People v Charles, 196 AD2d 750, lv denied 82 NY2d 892). Likewise, the. evidence amply supported an inference that defendant intended to benefit either himself or another, or to impede the owner’s recovery of the card (see, Penal Law § 165.55 [1]). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rescigno-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack