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

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 14, 1973·Published

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.

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

79 Misc. 2d 68 (People v. Shipp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related