People v. Sutherland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sutherland

2017 NY Slip Op 5562, 152 A.D.3d 419, 59 N.Y.S.3d 307

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2017

Docket4423 639/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5562 (People v. Sutherland) 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. Sutherland, 2017 NY Slip Op 5562, 152 A.D.3d 419, 59 N.Y.S.3d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered May 19, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant made intentional false statements concerning a material fact when he attempted to sell counterfeit artwork to an undercover police officer. In particular, defendant affirmatively misrepresented that he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of a painting, when in fact defendant had been informed by Sotheby’s that the painting could not be accepted for consignment sale because experts had determined that it was not authentic.

The court’s supplemental instructions, including its rereading of the relevant portion of the main charge, made it clear to the jury that in this case defendant could only be convicted on the basis of affirmatively false statements, rather than omissions, and defendant’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered May 19, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant made intentional false statements concerning a material fact when he attempted to sell counterfeit artwork to an undercover police officer. In particular, defendant affirmatively misrepresented that he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of a painting, when in fact defendant had been informed by Sotheby’s that the painting could not be accepted for consignment sale because experts had determined that it was not authentic.

The court’s supplemental instructions, including its rereading of the relevant portion of the main charge, made it clear to the jury that in this case defendant could only be convicted on the basis of affirmatively false statements, rather than omissions, and defendant’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5562, 152 A.D.3d 419, 59 N.Y.S.3d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sutherland-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack