People v. Shipp

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shipp

79 Misc. 2d 68, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1262

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 14, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 79 Misc. 2d 68 (People v. Shipp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Shipp, 79 Misc. 2d 68, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

■Since the owner of the stolen vehicle involved herein, on the day after defendant’s arrest, executed a supporting deposition (attached to the information) wherein he swore that he had not given defendant permission to operate his vehicle, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether a certified copy of a Police Department teletyped report of stolen vehicles, standing alone, was sufficient under ¡CPL 100.40 and 100.15 (subd. 3) as non-hearsay evidence of a lack of the owner’s consent. However, we note that, in our opinion, while the teletyped report is a record made in the regular course of the department’s business and may be admissible as proof that a vehicle was reported stolen, it does not provide proof that the owner did not give consent to this defendant (cf. People v. Fields, People v. Shipp [defendant herein] and People v. Hudson, 74 Misc 2d 109).

Coheur — Hogan, P, J., Olickman and McCullough, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

■Since the owner of the stolen vehicle involved herein, on the day after defendant’s arrest, executed a supporting deposition (attached to the information) wherein he swore that he had not given defendant permission to operate his vehicle, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether a certified copy of a Police Department teletyped report of stolen vehicles, standing alone, was sufficient under ¡CPL 100.40 and 100.15 (subd. 3) as non-hearsay evidence of a lack of the owner’s consent. However, we note that, in our opinion, while the teletyped report is a record made in the regular course of the department’s business and may be admissible as proof that a vehicle was reported stolen, it does not provide proof that the owner did not give consent to this defendant (cf. People v. Fields, People v. Shipp [defendant herein] and People v. Hudson, 74 Misc 2d 109).

Coheur — Hogan, P, J., Olickman and McCullough, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Misc. 2d 68, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shipp-nyappterm-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack